RJ. Silverstein’s
The Flash Points in Great Britain’s History
That Gave Rise to the American Colonists

While collectors see relics for economic value they often forget the true use or historical significance.
-RJ. Silverstein

1760’s England’s Underground Society’s (Jacobite) Rebellious Rattlesnake Button
Dug in Strood, South-East England
***   **   ***   **   ***

     Since, this button was found on British Soil several historical inaccuracies come into play for historians. This button could irrefutably serve as evidence that could correct and re-write American insignia roots origins. The revolutionary Rattlesnake button above was found in Strood England, which is a small town in the unitary authority of Medway in Kent, south-east England. The question must be asked: Does the early depiction of the 13 bars, and Binned Chain link serve as irrefutable evidence to where the American Patriots got their revolutionary symbols? Did Patriots morph these symbols as previous cultures did to fit their revolution need for social contract change?  


*** Introduction ***

      When a revolution occurs there is a break-down of established social contracts between the government and it’s people. An anarchical social movement develops when the established societal social contracts fail between its government and people. The roots of revolution are caused by a failure of social decency contracts by people in political power who usually benefit in self interest. A revolution is a breaking point in society in-which the populace demands a new societal social contract be forged with the intent too change the political power established in society through social contracts. As with the American Revolution there was a failure by the British Parliament and King to meet the colonists needs, but also one has to account for the lack of political organization of the colonies governance to meet the needs of the colonists. This gap of political, social, and economic union and understanding between Great Britains Parliament and its British colonists caused a perceived oppressive state of governance where loyalty to the Crown was absent. 

     Societal change comes through a series of transgressions or breeches of unfair and unbalanced social contracts by powerful political and economic individuals who work in self-interest. Usually for a transformative revolution to take place an accumulation of social contract failures has to occur to produce an ideological movement of change. Revolution is driven by public sentiment. This in-turn produces a new ideological thought to counter-balance the oppressive state perpetrated by the governing body. Not every revolution is fast moving and needs to take roots over decades. For America, it started in the 18th century open minded educational institutions in Scotland with their new Enlightened Ideals, and homage too fair and balanced societal social contracts by noted scholars like, John Locke. After several decades of student indoctrination a change in social, political, and economic order would be attainable by its alumni and public.

     In the 17th & 18th Century, social and political power was precarious at best in Europe. Their was constant struggles for power between the all the European kings and their enemies, as well as habitual jingoistic series of altercations stemming from the religious Reformation. The colonists in America had no love or allegiance to any of the European warring factions regardless of the nation state they came from. They’re immigration to America meant a means to  opportunity, and the Atlantic Ocean allowed for a narrow vision of colonial self-interest and prosperity. Part of the reason they fled is because they clearly understood that political, social, and economic change was a “reserved power” held only by the world elites or hierarchal religious leaders. They were born into a European class stratification system of hierarchal governing bodies, which secured and ensured the future power of the kings and their blue blooded noblemen.

     As the saying goes, “It was always like this”, is what the colonists lived with in their nation state. This is not what they wanted to hear when they reached America’s shores for opportunity. How did Europe get that way? Most likely by small introductions of forced political, social, economic contracts for the populace to abide by. Kings, noblemen, and religious leaders were usually educated and controlled the economic resources. It was always in the interests of the world’s powerful figures to prevent any change in the established societal status-quo. They willfully used the economic tools under their purview as well as a societal system of social class stratification in their favor to thwart any change in social contracts. This allowed them to control governing political bodies who were slow in enacting societal transformation that would work against them. In the 18th century, during the era of America’s revolution there was no decentralization of political power or technological advances as the internet to speed-up the process of societal contract change.

     There was a series of societal flash points that stemmed from small breaks in the governing bodies established social contracts. Like a number of small razor cuts. Each not significant enough to merit a social contract change, but when taken as a whole and then sentimentally multiplied together, it would lead to the change in the way the public embraces customary “schools of thought.” Being a species in our technological and enlightened educational infancy, 17th & 18th century educational institutions and monarchy leaders were usually at the foundation of societal change. Any change in stabled social contracts usually cultivated in an unnamed form of wealthy-youth indoctrination. This usually occurred between university professors and their wealthy students and alumni. This was a slow process that lacked the speed required to assist in the reformulation of societal social contracts.


 1770’s English Rattlesnake Button W/ Sunburst & 13 Bars
Dug in Watford, United Kingdom, Northwest of London
***   **   ***   **   ***

     In the 17th & 18th centuries, Scottish and English universities were slow in their indoctrination for societal social contract change. This was primarily due to the pushback of established schools of thought, and from age-old power- bases who derived their power from established societal governing social contracts. Their vehicles or avenues for the promotion of new schools of thought and change in society’s social contracts were extremely limited. Avenue resources were curtained to daily news, transcontinental news media, periodicals, and underground social organizations that operated under the radar of established Monarchies and Parliamentary governors. These limited avenues of rebellion outside of government ended-up spurring on the actions of underground movements by prominent men. This was not a unified movement, but the actions of the defiant factions acted sufficiently in concert over time to bring on a unification to result in a Revolution.  It should be noted, this was fueled by a growing number powerful elites who were in the position to undermine the political system in which they served themselves. A shadow government for lack of a better term.

     In America the rebellious Patriots would benefit from a half-a-century of cultivated efforts by the Scottish and English underground movement toward social contract change. These cultivated transatlantic bridged efforts in-turn helped fuel and guide America’s Patriot movement. In the mid 18th century, the American colonies suffered from a series of social and economic contract failures under British Law. The unequal justice of the established social contract structure was not just limited to a single class or single agricultural or arboriculture colony. The effects were on a variety or wide spectrum of laws to keep power contained to British citizenry who benefited from social class stratification.

     In the early stages of rebellion the “Newly Landed Gentry” tried to work under the British framework of social contract, but ultimately failed during their repeated attempts to work within the system. The colonists social and economic disparagement by the British citizenry supported by British regulars intimidated the colonists, and ended-up pushing them into acts of street violence throughout all the colonies. These colonist commoners were driven mostly by uneducated sentiment for the need of social contract change. There came a point in time when the citizenry could no longer wait and stand-by for their Newly Landed Gentry class to work through the established British political channels.  After repeated diplomatic failures by key politicians, the gentry colonists were forced into a new avenue, one of rebellious activity toward the Crown. The small movement of supporters under the guise of being called Patriots were themselves oppressed, and felt no loyalty to Great Britain’s governing body. The Patriots needed a plan to enact social contract change and a blueprint would be provided with the guidance of the underground movement which was starting to blossom in Scotland and England. Time to enlist in the Scot’s War!


1770’s Rattlesnake Button W/ 13 Stars & Stripes of the Revolutionaries
Dug in South Carolina at the Home Site of Brigadier General Augustus Washington
***   **   ***   **   ***

     In this era it is important to note that America was just seen as another address by the rest of the world for Great Britain. American colonists were under the jurisdiction of the British Parliament, and it was improper for other European nations to interfere in another nations internal governance. This is one of the reasons why financial or military help for rebellious minded Patriots in America was not welcomed sympathetically by European nations who already benefited through established treaties that were backed by economic relations with Great Britain’s elite. American Patriots were forced to seek help from Great Britains enemies or economic adversaries. The enemy of my enemy is my friend became the new school of thought on a chessboard that required many avenues of success for social contract change. The Scots with their Enlightened Ideals would provide the founders with a constitutional framework, the Englishmen in their underground movement against the Crown would provide the rebellious political undermining framework – including the symbolism used by Patriots, and European nation states like France, Spain, and Netherlands would provide the economic and military support. Hopefully, in the history i lay out in the pages below you will come to understand how the “Big Picture” of worldly events provided our founding fathers the new construct needed for societal social contract change that moved away from Kings and religious hierarchal leaders to a Representative Republic. Revolution in America occurred because social contracts failed not only the common citizenry, but it’s established aristocratic elites.


*** Scottish Preface ***

1775 George Washington Commander & Chief
Continental Army Uniform Button W/ Sons of Liberty Stripe Shield
***   **   ***   **   ***

“All Flash Points Have Roots in Political Causes for Social Contract Change”

     The rise to the birth of America would come through the desire for social, economic, and political change. A series of rebellion “flash-points” will emerge in England’s history with the transition of power to the Hanover Monarchy. With religious persuasion to keep Great Britain’s Monarchy protestant Parliament underhandedly passed the Act of Settlement in 1701. This law only allowed Protestants to have the legal right of succession of the English and Irish Crown. This law negated legal succession of the 50 Roman Catholics who were closer in primogeniture than George I. The law also superseded the age old custom of the first born sons legitimate right to succession, which should have naturally reverted back to James II of England IV of Scotland and then to his son. The Stuart family civil war for legal right of succession began with the outbreak of war known as the Glorious Revolution. This Scottish and English war began in 1688, and continued on for nearly a century. The struggle for power ended up tearing apart and dividing the citizens of Scotland, England, Ireland, and its territory realms. The Church of England and Hanoverian supporters began a demoralizing propaganda campaign which ended-up dividing the natural unity of United Kingdom’s citizens. A “Scotophobia” resulted and a lower class citizenry of Scot born lineage enveloped English society in all political and economical avenues for prosperity. Over the years this “Scotophobia” led to an underground movement where social contracts were undermined and secret rebellious activities would cultivate in underground social clubs.

The Stuart family civil war was not just confined to the realms and territories of the United Kingdom. Other sympathetic countries like France, Spain, and Italy gave refuge for Scottish Royals who fled Hanoverian oppression or were in exile. King James IV of Scotland had  extended family that ultimately took up the cause in other small nation states producing other Jacobite uprisings. 


The Scot’s War Begins


*** ** *** ** ***


The Royal Family’s British Civil War Begins

   In 1688, King James II was the last Catholic King of England, Scotland and Ireland. In 1688, he was deposed by parliament in the ‘Glorious Revolution’. He went into exile in France, where he was received by his cousin and ally political Louis XIV known as, “Le Roi Soleil” the Sun King. He fled for political haven after the culmination of a disastrous four-year reign which began with the Monmouth Rebellion and its unpopular aftermath of the Bloody Assizes in 1685. James II had an increasingly belligerent attitude toward Presbyterians in Scotland, and his policy of allowing Catholics to occupy the highest offices of the Kingdoms grew with unsettled popularity amongst established political elites. In 1687, James II issued, “The Declaration of Indulgence,” which was commonly referred to by the people as, “The Declaration for Liberty of Conscience.” The declaration was an attempt by James for religious reform. It called for broad religious freedom in religion throughout the British Isles. This would be the first European measure by a Monarch to call for “Freedom of Religion.” His Declaration granted broad religious freedom in England, which allowed a person to worship in their own homes and chapels as they saw fit. It also provided for citizens the legal requirement of affirming religious oaths before gaining employment in government and political offices. This was a blow to powerful religious leaders because it suspended all penal laws that enforced conformity to the Church of England. This Declaration for Liberty would resonate through future generations of Scotsmen & Englishmen, hereby indirectly acting as a pseudo grass root Proclamation that would ultimately be carried into the future for Parliamentary lawmakers to legislate upon. This was done by University professors who indoctrinated their graduate students who were of the elites class. they in-turn carried the social contract change message into their social clubs, hunting clubs, and Masonic lodges. Ultimately expanding to aggrieved liberties of newly landed gentry from social stratification. One could reasonably say the Declaration of Liberty would become an underlying principle in the (Jacobite) Masonic Constitution and go onto provide a base in the United States Constitution roughly 100 years later in America. 


 18th Century Scottish King & Constitution W/ St. Andrews Cross

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

      With King James II authoritarian ruling style and his strict adherence to the theory of the “Divine Right of Kings,” it made him a very unpopular political figure amongst Parliamentary figures and their constituents of the noble upper class. He struggled in asserting his political social contract agenda against an unfavorable Parliament who continually plotted to thwart his new social changes and reforms. The Declaration of Liberty was often portrayed to the general public by Parliamentary members as personal benefit for the King political maneuver. This gave legislative members in Parliament inroads for attacking the old absolutist model of power established over the centuries by European Kings. On the other side of the English political triangle (King-Church-Parliament) powerful religious leaders were opposed to the loss of their established legal supremacy of the Church of England. Church officials would become entrenched in their political position and become a powerful ally to the King James’ legislative opponents in Parliament.

     In Scotland the Presbyterians initially refused to accept the James’ Declaration of Liberty because it was issued under his sovereign authority and not through legislation in Parliament. It was publicly seen and characterized as the King’s Indulgence. King James II was forced to re-issue his declaration on June 28th, making it more palatable by attaching a clause that gave Presbyterians the same legal rights as Roman Catholics. The new revised declaration also stated with a reaffirmation of his Royal prerogative of wielding absolute power as traditional European Monarchies Devine Right of Kings without reserve. In England the re-issued Declaration of Liberty was welcomed by most non-conformists, Quakers, and Baptists; But not the Anglican Church officials who saw their power base diminished. William Sancroft who was the Archbishop of Canterbury along with six other Bishops petitioned the King’s Indulgence and declared it illegal. King James regarded this as a religious rebellion and sedition against the King and had them arrested and tried; However in a socially conscience political move he was able to maneuver the Bishops to be acquitted. 

     After some time, the countrymen of Scotland and England of the different religious denominations started to settle-in with the pro-catholic policies of King James II’s Declaration of Liberty. Unfortunately, for the English Protestants they held contention in the back of the minds because it was hard to shake off centuries of religious beliefs that Protestants were of a higher religious order. The Protestants were only content knowing the fact that the legitimate successors to the throne came from James’ first marriage to Anne Hyde the Duchess of York; Who’s children Mary II and Anne were raised in the Protestant religion and would continue the tradition as head of state.


 Portrait of James II in Garter Robes by Dutch Painter Peter Lely.

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

The Origins of the Jacobite Revolution

 In 1688, James II finally fathered a long-awaited male heir James Francis Edward the Prince of Wales. James Francis was the son of James II’s second wife Mary of Modena. Unfortunately, for the monarchy Mary was a devout Roman Catholic, and this provoked immediate controversy that led into public unrest that resulted in outcry and disseminated rumors that the child was an imposter, and smuggled into Mary’s birthing chamber. This would eventually lead into negative Catholic propaganda, and a given nickname to the new prince amongst the aristocratic gentry as, “The Old Pretender.” James Francis’ birth gave new insurgent inroads to Protestant political figures whom were just waiting for a way to re-open opposition and rally support against James II’s pro-Catholic policies. The newborn Prince represented a very real prospect of a permanent Catholic dynasty in England. In monarchial order the birth of a male prince would supplant the Protestant daughters of Anne II. Mary II and Anne’s accession to the British throne and could not be in legal contention. The fear of a new Catholic dynasty caused an indirect attack and propaganda war against Catholics and Scotsmen by English Protestants in England. Meaning, the Scottish-phobia propaganda campaign started by England’s Protestants with James Francis’ birth lasts more than 100 years spilling over into Europe as well as the British colonies in America.

     In 1688, Protestant political figures whom were high ranking signatories (later known as the Immortal Seven) concocted a way to keep the Protestant religion dominant in England. They invited William III, the Prince of Orange (who was James II’s nephew who was married to James eldest daughter Mary) to invade England with an Army and enable political support in Parliament. Despite James II’s Army’s numerical supremacy, and his cousin’s offer too supply French troops to squash the rebellion, James decided it was politically best to just flee to France. In 1689, the English Parliament passed legislation for a Bill of Rights, which denounced King James II, and in his actions had forfeited the throne by disposing the Great Seal of the realm into the river Thames. This Bill of rights also confirmed the new terms under which William III and Mary II would jointly rule. 


The Jacobite Revolution Begins

     In France King James II did not accept his pseudo exile quietly and began plotting his restoration to the throne. James’ supporters were still under the generational understanding of the lessons of the ramifications of undermining legitimate rule. The recent restoration of his brother Charles II who had been invited to return from exile in 1660 was still fresh in the minds of James’ supporters. They remembered how England’s countrymen ended-up facing political consequences after the collapse of Oliver Cromwell’s Interregnum. James II’s advocates took-on the name, “Jacobites,” (which is from a Latinized form of James) which would ultimately represent the support for the legitimate restoration of the House of Stuart. Since Scotland accepted England’s legal dethronement, James sailed to Ireland in 1689, to start his campaign in Ireland with his supporters who still considered him the legitimate King. In a legal political move James issued a bill of attainder against England’s rebellious ranking signatories, Parliament members, and countrymen who rebelled against him in what was known as, “The Glorious Revolution.” James was able to rally considerable support in Ireland, but unfortunately his army consisted of raw recruits. The battle took place on the 9th of July 1690, across the River Boyne near the town of Drogheda in the Kingdom of Ireland. Unfortunately, James’s army was defeated by the union of England’s Parliamentary forces and the leadership of Dutch stadholder William III of Orange. After Boyne, James fled again to the safety of his cousin in France and never returned. The defeat had adverse effects and changed the public sentiment. His failed attempt to regain the British Crown aided opponents in England and ensured a continued Protestant ascendancy in Ireland, Scotland, and England. William’s war continued in Ireland until the following year up until October of 1691. There was a symbolic dogma stigma attached of the symbolic importance of the Battle of Boyne, and was twisted in a public propaganda measure to propagate it as one of the best-known battles in the history of the British Isles. By 1791, its commemoration was given by the 1st of many parades to come by the, “Orange Order.” 


 A Jacobite Fan used by women to show their support for the Restoration of the House of Stuart

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

The Underground Jacobite Movement Begins

    The future belongs to those who prepare for today. James defeat led to a momentous political and military struggle with supporters of the House of Stuart, which spread rapidly into major European nations. After his father’s death in 1701, James Francis Edward was declared to be James III of England & VIII of Scotland and Ireland by the Jacobite supporters of the restoration of the House of Stuart. Fourteen years later in the Jacobite rising of 1715, with the support of his followers and his cousin Louis XIV of France, he tried to regain the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but was unsuccessful. This instituted a new wave of propaganda and political measures by the Crown, which placed a public stigma on Jacobites and anyone showing support of the Stuart claim. Any actions of support would be viewed as being un-loyal and treasonous to the crown. To fight back and win over the sentiment for the Jacobite Cause the Jacobites introduced a well-thought-out propaganda campaign that took root throughout the British Empire. They introduced catchy tunes and popular songs emerged, and works of art bearing the likeness of both King James II & James Francis Edward started to appear in sympathetic homes. Scottish Highlanders who were sympathetic to the Jacobite Cause became romanticized public figures to the tragedy of their loyalty to ancestral traditions, and portrayed as innocent victims of English overlords who wielded Parliamentary laws. This eventually spurred a Jacobite material culture to surface, which included: woman’s fans, medals, prints, portraits, and even glassware that used coded symbols to express loyalty and solidarity. All of which contributed to the efforts to make the House of Stuart became common-place and relevant, and keep the Jacobite’s Cause alive into the next generation for the day of the restoration of the House of Stuart.


***   **   ***  **   ***

Emblems adopted by the House of Stuart

The most common emblem associated with the House of Stuart is the six-petalled white heraldic rose. The same one George Washington was known to favor in his cockade when he was General of the Continental Army. For the Jacobites the white rose had connotations of strict birth right legitimacy, and was adopted by James III as his personal badge to refute the early rumors propagated by Stuart opponents to Catholicism. Supposedly, a rosebud to the right of the central rose represented Prince Charles Edward Stuart as being the legitimate heir-apparent. The second rosebud that blossomed to the left represented Charles younger brother Prince Henry Benedict. The Scottish Thistle represented the Stuart’s claim to the Scottish throne, and when surmounted under the crown it represented the ancient badge of Scotland. The Oak Leaf and Acorn also held great symbol significance in the Jacobite Cause. After Charles II hid in an oak tree on the grounds of the Boscobel House in Shropshire following the battle of Worcester in 1651, the oak became a Stuart badge and emblem of the Stuart Restoration. Charles wore oak leaves when he returned from exile in France to England in 1660 to assume the throne. Another strong emblem was Prince Edward Stuart’s Celestial Star. Since, Jacobite supports relied on ambiguity of symbols the Star was able to carry multiple meanings to obscure the real intent and purpose to British loyalists outside the cause. In a nutshell it symbolized the ascendency of the House of Stuart back into political power. The star offered a rebirth (by the Bonnie Prince) and regeneration message, as the Bethlehem Star offered the coming of the King, so this played into the legitimacy through the Devine Rights of his birth.


Jacobite Toasting Glass

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     Eventually, Jacobitism became a living social and political underground movement throughout Scotland, England, Ireland, France, and even to a lesser extent Italy. In the British colonies in America the Jacobite movement not only took root, but also progressed and blossomed in an environment by a citizenry loosely associated of the societal constraint of English ideology, which was slowly becoming vastly unpopular as the American revolution developed and prospered. As early as the 1760’s there were over 120 Jacobite social clubs identified in Europe, and small private Stuart sympathy gatherings became a new kind of political entertainment focal point for the Causes’ movement. Ritual club practices started to take root and blossom with ceremonial ritualistic type embellishments incorporated in gatherings, which expanded into Jacobite pseudo custom practices. An example would be the practice of drinking wine toasts to their beloved King “Over the Water.” In a type of romanticized tradition the club would have design ordered specially engraved glasses that were decorated with pictorial references of the House of Stuart and then used them in their toasting ceremonies. In this practice whenever a member offered a toast to the health of the Bonnie, a glass of wine would have been held above a bowl or glass of water (literally toasting the King over water) and then given a cheer or beneficial words to his future and health. Other forms of social gatherings developed from the underground movement that was more public. Friendly Hunts organized by Scottish gentry like ones George Washington participated in started to blossom in Scottish nationality geographical areas. These were mainly newly “Landed gentry” who were both sympathetic to the Patriot and Jacobite Cause. These individuals were Revolutionaries of the gentry class who had strong ties to each other and usually associated through the Masonic Lodge (Jacobite) network.  

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

Great Britain’s Ruling Class Move Away from EuropeanTradition of Salian Law


*** ** *** ** ***


The Salian Codes of the Frankish King Clovis 

The Salian or Salic Law was an ancient Salian Frankish civil law code compiled sound AD 500 by the first Frankish King Clovis. It provided early medieval European nations a blueprint for civil and criminal laws. It provided strict civil statutes that governed and barred women’s legal rights of their family’s inheritance. The best-known tenet ended-up causing European Royal conflict is the principle exclusion of women from their inheritance of estates. This included transfer and ownership of land and the right of ascension to the throne. This Salian Law would plunge most 18th century European powers into war against one another. The notion by Royal families to extend their female lineage in a right of succession would be the root cause for the War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739-1748), the War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748), the First Carnatic War in India ( 1746-48), the Jacobite Rising in Scotland (1745), and the First & Second Silesian Wars in Prussia (1744-1745) for control over the region of Silesia, Bohemia, and upper Saxony. 


 Ernest Augustus’ Coat of Arms as Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg 1661-1692

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

The Hanover Family’s ascension to the throne of Great Britain

     Ernest Augustus was born on November 20th 1629, in the town of Göttingen, which is a district of Lower Saxony Germany. He was the son of George who was the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, and Anne Eleonore of Hesse-Darmstadt. His father George ruled as the Prince of Calenburg. Ernest Augustus had little chance in succeeding his father as ruler, because he was the fourth child in his father’s lineage. So, his relatives appointed him Prince Bishop of Osnabruck, which was an ecclesiastical principality of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1679, his two elder brothers died without sons, and Ernest inherited part of his father’s vast territories. This included the Principality of Calenburg, and along with his succession came the title of the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg. By 1683, Ernest had five children and was concerned that his accumulated territories would be subdivided, so he instituted a primogeniture giving his first born (legitimate) son his entire estate instead of dividing it up among some or all the siblings upon his death. This idea obviously wasn’t too popular amongst his children (lol). 

     Ernest Augustus had lofty aspirations for political power and set his sights on an appointed position in the “Electorship” of the Holly Roman Empire. In 1683, he made a pact with the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I to support his cause in the Great Turkish War being fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League of affiliated countries. To show his gratitude after the war for his sturdy political and military support, Leopold I appointed Ernest Augustus as, “Prince-elector;” thus raising the House of Hanover with a heightened-class electoral dignity throughout the Holly Roman Empire. Ernest Augustus was able to add a new title to the House of Hanover as, “Prince-elector” of the electoral college of the Holly Roman Empire. Meaning, he would now have the prestige of being a member of an electoral college that would be responsible for electing the Holly Roman Emperor. 


 Ernest Augustus modified his Coat of Arms as Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
to reflect his new title as Elector-designate in 1692-1698

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   *** 

European Royal Marriage Traditions

     For centuries Royal families who wield trends power would intermarry as a way of keeping their titles and lands within the royal family. The practice emanates from ancient Egypt tradition of Royal incest. Since gods marry each other, so should royals. By European Royals arranging marriages of the next generation’s cousin-to-cousin it helped ensure the king will only have to share his power, riches, and privileges with people that are already his relatives. This practice also produced a stability among royal classes, and binding their blood-line ties the next generation. 



     In 1658, Ernest Augustus the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg married Sophia of Palatinate who was the granddaughter of King James I of England. Sophie, Princess Palatine of the Rhine was the daughter of Fredrick V, Elector Palatine and Elizabeth Stuart of England who’s father was King James I of England and married to Queen Anne of Denmark. Ernest Augustus was a second cousin to Sophia’s mother Elizabeth Stuart. Both were great grandchildren of Christian III of Denmark. As the Royal granddaughter of James I of England, Sophia of Palatinate was their “heir presumptive” to the throne of England and Ireland under the Settlement Act of 1701; and then six years later she would become the heir of Scotland by the legislative Acts of Union in 1707. When Ernest Augustus married Sophia of Palatinate on September 30th 1758, it meant that through their marital union their successors would be the legitimate heirs of the Principality of Calenburg (Germany) and placed in-line for the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland. Meaning, through Ernest Augustus’s marriage to Sophia of Palatine it would later provide George I an inherited claim to the British throne as King of England and Ireland. This would come about 56 years later in 1714, after the death of his second cousin Queen Anne of Great Britain.


 George I, circa 1714, the year of his succession to the throne of England
Oil on Canvas by Sir Godfrey Kneller

***   **   ***  **   ***

     George Louis was born on May 28th 1660, in the city of Hanover in the Duchy of Brunswick-Luneburg in the Holy Roman Empire. George was the eldest son of Ernest Augustus, and when his father passed in 1698, he claimed his title as, the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg. George was also the only heir to the German territories of his father and three childless uncles. George had other younger siblings, but was brought-up with Fredrick Augustus who was just a little more that year younger. George’s father played an active part in young George’s education and took him hunting and riding, and introduced him to political matters of state and military tactics. In 1675, when George was fifteen years old his father Ernest took him on a military campaign in the Franco-Dutch War with the deliberate purpose of testing his resolve and training him with the experience of battle. His father was said to have believed that the campaign experience was necessary in-order to build strong character, and make sure George would be a strong-minded successor. The early military experience was believed by his family members to have had an everlasting influence on George’s political aspirations.  


1720’s Portrait of King George I

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     During George’s lifetime there was a succession of European wars in which he was able to expand his domains significantly throughout Germany. Along with these fortunes of war, George was able to expand his nobility title as Archbannerbearer and get ratified into a key political position of being the prince-elector of an electoral college, which was responsible for electing the Holly Roman Emperor. This was a significant title that carried enormous political weight throughout the Holly Roman Empire.


The Crown Jewels of England’s Monarchs

The regalia used by England’s monarchs can be traced back 800 years to Edward the Confessor in the 12th Century.
There are over 140 Royal ceremonial objects that invest and crown the monarch in their various roles as Head of State.
These objects feature heraldic devices and national emblems of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     George I would ascended to the British throne as the King of England and Ireland at the age of 54. He would be the first monarch to ascend to the throne of England from the House of Hanover. He was only able to become the legitimate successor because Parliament passed of the Act of Settlement of 1701, which only allowed Protestants the right to have legal right of succession to the English and Irish Crown. When Queen Anne of Great Britain passed away there was over 50 Roman Catholics who were in closer primogeniture than George I was. This law superseded the custom of the first born sons legitimate right to inherit his parents entire or main estate. Meaning, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement to keep the country’s identity and the throne of England Protestant, not to reverse the Salian Codes to the benefit the future male heirs of the German House of Hanover. How did the British nobles get away with this? Easy, political levers of the rich who were behind the power of the legislature. The English Parliament threatened to pass measures that threatened to restrict Anglo-Scottish trade, herby crippling the Scottish economy if they did not agree to the Protestant Hanoverian succession. I guess that would prove easier then selling it in the hearts of the Empire’s countryman. Eventually, in 1706/7 the Acts of Union was passed in both Parliaments that united England and Scotland into a single political entity.


George II, circa 1727 when he succeeded his father became King and Elector at the age of 43
Portrait by Charles Jervas 

***   **   ***  **   *** 

     His son George II was born on November 9 1683 in Herrenhausen Palace in (Hanover) northern Germany. He would ultimately be the last British monarch to be born outside of Great Britain. In the Hanover line of succession George II was the natural hereditary Prince of Brunswick-Luneburg, and after his father ascended to Great Britain’s throne as King of England and Ireland, he would be entitled to those titles until his death in 1760. In his early childhood George’s parents raised him speaking French, which was the language of diplomacy and the court. After the age of four, his tutor John Holstein taught him German. Then as a young adult he continued his studies and was schooled in English and Italian. George studied genealogy, and was said to have a keen interest with battle tactics and European military history.

     In this era, young men would distinguish themselves as brave combatants on the battlefield and be given a societal social honor of service to ones country or cause. As a young adult seeking social stature in the House of Hanover George was no different. He was eager to distinguish himself on a battlefield and gain the reflective stature as fearless soldier. As a means to an end he wanted to participate in the war against France in the War of Spanish Succession ( in Belgium – Flanders). Unfortunately, his father refused him permission until he produced a male heir.


George’s Desire For Genuine Love, and the Glory of War

     In 1702, George’s marital future was properly being arranged, and negotiations had begun for the hand of Princess Hedvig Sophia of Sweden. Fortunately, for George nothing came out of the proposition. George’s father who was more astute in the matters of heart intervened. He did not want George to enter into a loveless arranged marriage as he was forced into. He wanted his son to have the opportunity to first meet and get to know his bride without any alternative title aspirations before any formal arrangements could be made. George understood his stature as a suitor, and decided to listen to his father’s advice and take steps in-order do away with any title aspirations for social rank that a prospect could have. Being somewhat renowned as a suitor in the Holly Roman Empire proved a little more difficult for George in finding true love. Luckily in 1705, he would receive his break when he visited the Court of Ansbach (incognito) under a false name “Monsieur de Busch.” George herd favorable descriptions and wittingly visited with the intent of a potential marriage prospect to Caroline of Ansbach. When George met Caroline he was immediately taken back by her charisma and personality. After returning and it was said by ones around him that he could not think of anybody else and wanted to advance his relationship without reservation. Meaning, he had completely fallen in love with her, and by the end of August a formal marriage contract was agreed upon. By September 2, Caroline came to Hanover and they wed in the chapel in Herrenhausen Palace. 


Caroline of Ansbach, Queen Consort of Great Britain, Electress Consort of Hanover,
Spouse of George II of Great Britain

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   *** 

     In 1707, when Caroline gave birth to their son Frederick, George revisited his plea with his father to join the war. In 1708, George went to war and participated in the Battle of Oudenarde. With his Hanover nobility standing and being trained his entire life in horsemanship he was given an officer’s rank, and served in the vanguard of the Hanoverian cavalry. In his first engagement it was recorded that George’s horse was shot out from underneath him, and the colonel immediately beside him was killed. George with the fortunes of war left the battlefield unscathed. General John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough later wrote a commendation letter that George, “distinguished himself extremely, charging at the head of and animating by his example (the Hanoverian troops), who played a good part in his happy victory. George would return home with the trappings of war he sought his whole young adult life. 


The Hanover’s Obversion to the Salian Law of Succession 

     George’s privileged education by the finest private tutors in Germany, and then later his active participation in the Spanish War of Succession would end-up giving him a personal conceitedness and arrogance in his social and political outlook. Often times wielding his nobility title and stature like a sword to make his own school of thought (opinion) intransigent over other well informed opinions.

     Later, after he becomes the Prince of Wales his arrogance led to a rebellious political opposition toward his father’s monarchy, and to his father’s court he would become obstinate, which led to the deterioration of his relationship with his father. After he was banished from his father’s castle and court, George politically conspired with like minded progressive English gentry politicians who were associated with the Whig party. They colluded to undermine the foundational rule of law of the king’s absolute monarchism, and worked against Parliament’s Tory backed political re-enforcing legislation. In the early days of London’s changing political times Whig ideas of social and political contract change toward government with the replacement of Constitutional monarchism will end-up being a factor in changing the centuries old Royal European custom of observing Salian laws.  

     Crossing the bridge to get to how the Prince of Wales would shift his politics away from the established European customs and laws toward progressive Constitutional monarchism, one would have to take into account the political positions of all the Elector’s of Hanover in several European wars, in-which the Silesian Law were the underlying catalyst of conflict. Prime examples would be the First & Second Silesian War, the War of Austrian succession, and the Jacobite Rising of 1715, and the Jacobite Uprising of 45. All notable European wars in-which the Elector’s of Hanovers defied Salian Law for personal political gain, and should be viewed by American historians as the precursors of past peripheral events of King George’s War in America. All these wars were a composite of other outlying factors, but shared stranded roots in their obversion to Salic Law of a female heirs hereditary right of succession (the eldest daughter) to a Royal European throne. With Hanover’s politically powerful nobility titles throughout Europe’s Holly Roman Empire and then later in Great Britain they were able to employ military forces at their disposal to maneuver their political will.

     *To connect the future dots into the American Revolution, we can clearly see how the Hanover family from Ernest Augustus to George III new how to use their ruling titled positions to manipulate the political mechanisms of government to invoke military support for several 18th century European wars. So, when George III needed to squash the rebellion in the American Colonies he was able to easily supplement the British Army with German soldiers. Thirty-thousand German soldiers fought along side the British Army during the war, which amounted to 25% of the British forces. The Hanovers would even go on using their German Allies even after the American Revolution in 1798, for the Irish rebellion. Even though George III considered America and Ireland his personal property, he still had Great Britain on the hook to pay for the German Hessian mercenaries as auxiliaries to the British Army. Hence, to my first paragraph, used their ruling titles to manipulate the mechanisms of government throughout Scotland, England, Ireland, and parts of Europe within the Holly Roman Empire. 

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***


The Elector of Hanover’s Commencement into Great Britain’s Political & Social Life


The Hanoverian Coat of Arms for the Prince of Whales

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   *** 

     George II and his father sailed from the western coast of the Netherlands on September 27th 1714, and arrived two days later in Greenwich, south east London, England. The following day, George and his father entered London in a ceremonial procession to a crowd of spectators estimated to be one and a half million people. George was completely taken back by the grandeur and the size of London. It was 50 times larger in scale than his home city of Hanover with at least double the population. Immediately following the ceremonial procession George II the hereditary Prince of Bruneswick-Luneburg would be given the english title Prince of Wales. George wasted no time in immersing himself into Great Britains societal realm and continued on to make ceremonial “Royal or Triumphal Entries” throughout the cities of Chichester, Guildford, Portsmouth, and Havant. He allowed spectators to watch him dine in public at Hampton Court Palace, and would often attend events in English theatre productions. At one point he became so infatuated with English life that he claimed, “that he had no drop of blood that wasn’t English.”  


 The Sovereign’s Sceptre & Cross created in 1661

The Sovereign Sceptre is used in the Coronation ritual for the Kings and Queens of England.
The Sceptre represents the monarchy’s secular power as the sovereign Head of State.
The Great Star of Africa, 333 Diamonds, 31 Rubies, 15 Emeralds, 7 Sapphires, 6 Spinels, 1 Amethyst.

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     For the Hanover family to successfully transition into power over the legitimate Scottish Catholic male heir of the House of Stuart a multi-facet propaganda campaign was devised to counteract any opposition to a German nationality family’s accession to the throne of England. There was a segment of the population in Great Britain, Scotland, and Ireland who were Catholic or against someone being placed on the England’s throne because of their Protestant religion or that wasn’t native born to Great Britain. To combat Scotland’s James II & VII and his future male heirs an anti-Scot propaganda campaign was devised with the political & social support of the Protestant gentry, and successfully promoted their campaign throughout society by using church officials and England’s Anglo-Saxons Protestant subjects who were strongly affiliated with the Church of England.  


The Scot’s War in England that Plagued the Hanover Dynasty


 Prince Edward Stuart Along with Clan Leaders of the Highlands of Scotland

***   **   ***  **   ***

     The Scottish Clans fought several battles along side King James II & VII and his legitimate male heirs to the House of Stuart. In each instance the Hanovers were victorious and able to squelch the Scottish rebellion. After the defeat of the last Jacobite Uprising of 45, (led by Prince Edward Stuart) the House of Stuart supporters were only able to keep their movement alive by going underground. This is because Great Britain’s Parliament passed a new set of sedition and treason legislation that outlawed any form of rebellious acts and associated criticisms of the British Crown. Meaning, it curtailed the Catholic populations societal disenfranchisement out-lash, and in-effect squashed all Jacobite rebellious propaganda or subversive acts that would be initiated against the King of England. These were now considered illicit and punishable offenses under law. Certain rebellious acts would carry heavy punitive consequences that include being hung by your neck with a rope in the town square as an example.

     The hearts of men and their lifetime valued ideas usually cannot be forced to change by any religious or Parliamentary eminence of the King. The Jacobite rebellion would now shift away from the battlefields and taken underground into private social clubs where the politically and socially disenfranchised gentry aired their grievances against the Hanover rule. After some time in the 1760’s and 1770’s the private social clubs grew in numbers and created larger more public Jacobite friendly networks and espionage rings that used catch phrases, secret messages, tokens, signs, symbols, and material objects. 


18th Century Jacobite Material Culture
Prince Edward Stuart French Gold Snuff Box

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     For generations the Jacobites would live in societal social and political disparagement. Around the 1760’s the Jacobite movement snowballed in size and emerged from concealment promoting their revolutionary ideas of social contract change. At first they carefully walked the lines of treasonous behavior and actions by subtlety illustrating the social injustices by the King’s monarchy toward his subjects. This started as a newspaper media campaign that blossomed over the years into a reconfiguration of thought by University officials. They in-turn had an influence on the next generation for changing societies established social contracts into a new age of enlightened ideals and religious societal freedoms. This Jacobite movement also blossomed into the view of the mainstream society through a “Jacobite Material Culture,” which included various forms of artistry and pro House of Stuart material objects. All of these items took on a persona of social disparagement against the Hanoverian monarchial rule from within his own realm.

     To connect the dots to the American Revolution. It should be noted that going forward from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Protestants perpetrated a social anti-Scot propaganda campaign against all of Scotland, England, and Ireland’s Catholics. Meaning, a A society bastardization or “Scotophobia” developed in both Scotland and England that placed anyone from Scottish lineage into the quandary of being the antithesis of proper protestant english ancestry. This demoralization of catholic Scots would even cross the Atlantic Ocean and carry as racism in the hearts of the English and German white Anglo-Saxon protestants who settled the British colonies in America. The American Revolution allowed the Scot’s to break the bonds of English racism and propaganda war of Scotophobia.


  An Anglican Church of God Button worn to show
Protestant Support for King George II of England

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

The Catch 22 that Politically Affected the Future Hanover Dynasties 

     George I ascended to the throne of England with an heir of entitlement due to his birthright and titles in the Holly Roman Empire and Germany. This was opposite of his young son who ingratiated himself with Great Britain’s gentry and subjects of the crown. George I was a conservative monarch and a political ally to the Tories. The Tory party was a political party who held-up the continuity of social order as it evolved through history. This was the political party that supported the established religious and political order, and opposed the exclusion of James II from succession. The tories political and social philosophy could best be summed-up as, “God, King, & Country.” This is where George I monarchy would derive his political parliamentary strength.

     Unfortunately, George I ascended to the throne of England when monarchial powers were being curtailed by the country’s transition into a new modern system of cabinet government. A new political faction from the late 1680’s known as the Whigs was starting to blossom under political opponents of the Tories Sir Robert Walpole and Viscount Townshend. They were trying to give legs to a new modern style of government who believed in constitutional monarchism over the rule of an absolute monarchy. The Whig party idea was to form a political body of high ranking officials who were responsible for the governance of the country and responsible for executing and enforcing state laws. Hereby, reducing the role of the King’s influence upon domestic politics. For George I who believed in a monarchy’s absolute power this new type of progressive political opposition was a nightmare emerging in the time when his dynasty would begin its reign. 


The Prince of Wales Quarrel with the King & Makes Lifetime Political Enemies

     In 1707, before going off to war against France in Flanders Prince George and his wife Caroline announced the birth of their first son Frederick. When George accompanied his father to assume the throne in 1714, Frederick stayed back in Hanover to be brought up by private tutors along with his three sisters Anne, Amelia, and Caroline. In 1717, George II and Caroline announced the birth of their second son Prince George William. Following the traditional ceremonial customs of the King of England, George I appointed (his political ally) Lord chamberlain the Duke of Newcastle as one of the Baptismal sponsors of George II’s son. The story goes that George II disliked Newcastle, and without warrant verbally insulted the duke at his sons christening. This lack of proper etiquette and confrontation would lead to a whole series of events that would affect the Prince of Wales future reign as King. His impoliteness put an immediate wedge between him and his father. The Duke of Newcastle felt George’s boorish unmannerliness was loutish, and he misconstrued his words as a formal challenge to a duel. His father was humiliated and angered by his son lack of civility. So, by order of the King, George confined his son and Caroline temporarily to their apartment immediately after the baptism, and then afterward formally banished them both from his main residence at Saint James Palace in Westminster. The Prince and Princess of Wales left the King’s Court, but their girls who came from Hanover to live remained in the care of the king. 

     The King distrusted George’s political motives and found him in constant opposition of his (Tory party) legislative policies not only in England, but Germany as well. For the next several years George’s residence at Leicester House in London became a frequent meeting place for his father’s political opponents (The Whig Party) who favored constitutional monarchism and disparaged Tory policy legislation. The King was jealous of George’s popularity with Great Britain’s subjects and despised his efforts in helping the political activists of the Whig party rise in strength. Their relationship deteriorated to a point that when king visited Hanover Germany again in 1719, he established a Regency Council instead of appointing his son George to the guardianship. He feared that his well-laid plans and efforts to expand Hanover’s German territories at the expense of Sweden would be undermined.


Robert Walpole, The Right Honourable Earl of Orford 

***   **   ***   **   ***

     Two frequent visitors of the Prince of Wales Leicester House was English Whig Statesman Sir Robert Walpole and his brother in-law Charles Townshend. Like his father Robert Walpole was a member of the Whig Party. In 1701, he won his first seat in a general election in Castle Rising, and the following year he left to win a seat in a neighboring district of King’s Lynn. The voters and politicians taken by his mannerism endearingly nicknamed him “Robin.” In 1705, Queen Anne appointed him to be a member of the council for her husband Prince George of Denmark, Lord High Admiral. Walpole became a voice of reason who proved to have a talent as an intermediary for reconciling legislative policies of the Tory controlled government to the leaders of the Whig Party. Godolphin who was the Lord High Treasurer and leader of the cabinet recognized Walpole’s abilities appointed him to the position of Secretary of War in 1708, and in 1710 simultaneously held the post of Treasurer of the Navy. 


A political cartoon depicting English Societies fight between the Whigs and the Tories

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

    In 1710, Henry Sacheverell a high Anglican Church Clergyman who served in the House of Commons would continually preach anti-Whig sermons. Unfortunately, this irritated Lord Godolphin and he called for Sacheverell’s immediate impeachment. Trying to neutralize the political discourse of heightened politicians, Walpole tried to use his skills as an intermediary and use personal influence with the Whig arty and clout with Lord Godolphin to stop the prosecution of Sacheverell. Walpole had the forethought of the societal ramifications of this political censure by the Whig party in the public square, and his foresight came with the “Sacheverell Riots.” A series of outbreaks of public disorder took to the streets and spread across England. Tories would physically attack dissenters along with the homes, meeting houses, and chapels of Presbyterians who’s congregation tended to support the Whig party. This led to the downfall of the Whig Party in the general election of 1710. The new ministry under the leadership of Robert Harley tried to entice Walpole in staying on if he switched his political affiliation to Tory, but Walpole declined. He removed Robert Walpole from the office of Secretary at War, but he stayed on as Treasurer of the Navy until January 2, 1711. In the short interim he constantly defended Lord Godolphin against Tory attacks in parliamentary debate, as well as in the newspapers. In 1712, the Tories started making unfounded accusations in the press and accused Walpole of venality and corruption in the matter of two forged contracts for Scotland. Walpole was impeached by the House of Commons and found guilty of the House of Lords sighting he was dubiously “guilty of a high breach of trust and notorious corruption;” even though it was proven he retained none of the money from the contracts. He was expelled from Parliament and imprisoned in the Tower of London where he was regarded as a political martyr. After his release from prison he became one of the most outspoken representatives for the Whig Party Opposition. He was credited for writing anonymous pamphlets and newspaper articles attacking Robert Harley’s inept ministry.  


Charles Townshend in 1715-1720
Dressed in his official robes and boldly wearing the emblem of the Order of the Garter

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townsend was a Whig party statesman who held many senior political positions in Parliament including, Secretary of State of the Northern Department for a decade in the early 1700’s when King George I first came into power. Early in Townshend’s career he was very much favored by King George I, because he helped crush the Jacobite Rising of 1715, (both at home and abroad) just shortly after George succeeded to the throne. Some years later, George I became disillusioned with Townshend’s office for political support in Parliament’s foreign policies. The king was able to wield his monarchy’s power from the Tory party, and the political divide between the Whigs and Tories grew increasingly in this era.

     Charles Townshend was a peaceful man who’s main interest lied in the British agricultural revolution. He was often referred to as “Turnip Townshend.” After the Jacobite Uprising of 1715, he favored peaceful resolutions in all foreign endeavors of the British Empire. In opposition to the king’s interest Charles Townshend advocated for a defensive alliance between Britain and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, and with Great Britain and France. His office was steadfast against any military interference by Great Britain in the war between Sweden and Denmark. Afterward, with increasing political pressure from the king and the Tory party, Charles Townshend “fell out of favor.” The right honourable  Viscount Townshend ended up leaving the ministry in 1717, he and his brother in-law Sir Robert Walpole gave rise to the support of the Whig political Party and became vocal legislative opponents to the king and legislation policies proposed by the Tories under Robert Harley’s ministry.

He directed British foreign policy in close elaboration with his brother in-law de facto Prime Minister Robert Walpole.


 A political cartoon depicting the Tories (& Religious Leaders) and Whigs in a fight for power behind the Crown

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

     In 1720, Sir Robert Walpole and his brother in-law Charles 2nd Viscount Townshend encouraged the Prince of Wales to reconcile his differences with King George for the sake of public unity. The Prince understood the importance of public perception and agreed it is best for public perception to show a unified state. Unfortunately, the lack of trust and built-up contempt between the king and the prince resulted in a half-hearted reconciliation. On the surface the reconciliation for the sake of state appearances did provide comfort to the realm’s subjects and the quarreling political parties of Parliament. Sir Robert Walpole and Charles Townshend of the Whig party were able to gain an entrance back into political office and rejoin the ministry; Hereby, giving an entrance for the minority Whig party to capture political power and have a legislative influence in Parliament. 

     There appears to have been no personal reconciliation between King George and his son, just a public facade of reconciliation between the King of England and the Prince of Wales. Some scholars believe the reconciliation effort was undermined by the intrigues of Lord Charles Spencer. He distorted the intent of the reconciliation into a single objective go being a political subterfuge by members of the Whig Party who were looking to gain entrance back into power. Lord Spencer taunted the king the notion that it was all a Whig party conspiracy to supplant the Prince of Wales on his throne. Lord Spencer’s unsubstantiated paranoia must have given King George pause to his sons true motives and intentions. The king taking Spencer’s advice half-heartedly ended-up steadfast in his previous rendered personal decisions and political decries. The Prince of Wales three daughters were not returned out of the King’s guardianship into his or Caroline’s parental care, and George was still barred from becoming Regent in Hanover during his (king’s) absence. 

     A year later in 1721, Great Britain suffered from an economic disaster dubbed, “The South Sea Bubble.” This was a dubious political (Ponzi) scheme introduced by Robert Hurley as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1711; In hopes of reducing and consolidating Great Britain’s national debt. The founders of the scheme engaged in insider trading and gave huge bribes to Tory politicians in-order to gain their support for Acts of Parliament (legislation) that would be necessary for the scheme. The South Sea Company would be a public-private partnership and would be granted a monopoly in trade in South America and it’s near by islands. All holders of national debt would be required to surrender it  to the South Sea Company who would issue shares to the same amount. On outward appearance to debt holders it was presented as a lucrative enterprise, but unfortunately the Spanish controlled trade in South America at the time, and the British were also at war with them. Secondly, the company’s money was inappropriately used to give certain individuals unbacked loans by purchasing its own shares, hereby bloating the value of Great Britain’s national debt. This led to a considerable number of people being ruined by the share’s collapse in value and the national economy being greatly reduced.  

     The economic disaster of the South Sea Bubble was a social and political disaster for the king and his ministers. First, it placed a political strain in the relationship with the Tories. He feared that he would become the political scapegoat for the economic crash, and the Tories would rescind their political support in his succession as king as laid down in the Act of the Settlement. He only managed to avoid direct implications in the Company’s fraudulent actions because the Royal Archives had showed he had paid money for (some of) his stocks, and that he also lost money in the crash. This legally cleared him from political opponent’s accusations that he had taken stock as a bribe for the South Sea Company’s deal to be sanctioned.

Flash Point Toward Government Change

     In english society there was a forced social contract change in political thought. There was a complete loss of political faith in the Tory party to properly serve England’s subjects for the country’s greater good. There would be a decisive societal turn in away from the centuries old political school of thought favoring the Tories absolute monarchism, and a movement toward the Whig Party’s Constitutionalist approach to government. Robert Walpole would now be given an avenue (by reconstruction) to rise-up to the pinnacles of government as Great Britain’s first de facto Prime Minister (Officially, at the time he was known as, First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer); and the power of the Whig Party would be so favored by the public that the Tories would not come to hold any kind of governmental power for another half-century. 


The Dynasty Succession Brings in a New Era of Political Change

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by American Indian allies. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers, compared with 2 million in the British colonies.[4] The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians.

The European nations declared a wider war upon one another overseas in 1756, two years into the French and Indian war, and some view the French and Indian War as being merely the American theater of the worldwide Seven Years’ War of 1756–63; however, the French and Indian War is viewed in the United States as a singular conflict which was not associated with any European war.


The Seven Years War Begins * The French and Indian War
Guerre de la Conquête * The Fourth Intercolonial War

     The term reference to the “French and Indian War” is a phraseology only used in the United States. It was a colonial  reference to the two enemies of the American British Colonists. European historians use the term “Seven Years’ War” as their reference. The French speaking Canadians of the era refer to the war as, “Guerre de la Conquete” (“War of the Conquest”) or the “Fourth Intercolonial War.” 

     The French and Indian War officially commenced in 1754, when the British colonists in North America invaded and attacked the French-Canadian outposts and forts in the disputed Ohio Valley territory. The territorial dispute was first initiated by the actions of the French-Canadian militia who built new forts on Ohio’s waterways in-order to protect their trade routes. This was viewed by the colonists of Virginia as a land invasion by the French, and a maneuver by the French-Canadians to establish a territorial right of domain of Ohio’s territory and its waterways. 

 To formally address the situation of the French-Canadian military encroachment into the Ohio Valley, Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie took it upon his own authority to order a small British militia unit under the command of Lieutenant Colonel George Washington to go on expedition to the newly constructed forts. Washington as a British soldier would have the authority to act as formal solicitor of both the Governor of Virginia and King of England. He was given strict instructions to deliver a pseudo letter of intent from Lt. Governor Dinwiddie to the fort’s high ranking officer. The correspondence demanded that the French-Canadian militia leave their newly constructed forts at key trading locations along Ohio Valley’s river ways.


This small British military unit was led by a 22 year old commissioned officer Lt. Colonel George Washington. Shortly after George Washington’s expedition failed, he ended-up ambushing a small French force at the Battle of Jumonville Glen on May 28th 1754. This conflict ended-up having a cascading effect within North America’s disputed territories and exploded outside America’s continental boundaries and into the trans-Atlantic shipping routes. French merchant ships carrying trade goods transatlantic became the victims of British-American merchant privateer pirates who would seize their ships and cargo. The British-American colonial pirates would often rename their captured vessel, and re-use them in their open sea warfare. 

     Robert Dinwiddie most likely initiated the conflict against the French-Canadians because of his own land speculation interests in the Ohio Valley. He most likely used the guise of the “pursuit of happiness” of his fellow Virginians who profited from land speculation and other associated professions which benefited from the westward expansion into Ohio. Using his political authority as Colonial Administrator and his legal authority under the King of England he 



     At the time, the wealthy colonists of Virginia were actively engaged in venture capital business, which serviced land speculation companies for frontiersmen and settlers who were looking to expand westward into Ohio’s uncharted territory. 

 As lieutenant Governor and colonial administrator he was given broad political and legal authority to act in the best interests of the Colony of Virginia. Dinwiddie’s authority to act against the French was empowered from the King of England’s property right of eminent domain in America, and the conceitedness of affluent Virginians as being the original settlers of the American territories.

At the commence of the French Indian War, the British had roughly 2 million European colonists living in the British colonies. The French had roughly 60,000 settlers in New France (Canada) and the Louisiana territory. Each side of the conflict was supported by military units from its parent country as well as their Native American Indian allies. Even though European nations declared a wider war upon one another in Europe, the French Indian War for some reason was not associated with the growing conflict in Europe between Britain-Prussia and France-Austria. 


     Meanwhile, in central Europe Prussia was expanding its territories and struggling with Austria for dominance outside of the Holly Roman Empire. In a heightened attempt for global power, Prussia formed an alliance with the Kingdom of Great Britain in-order to create a dominant European world force. In-order to curtail Prussia and Great Britain’s increasing might an alliance was formed with Austria and France in the First Treaties of Versailles. During the first two years of the war in 1754 & 1755, many of the middle and smaller powers in Europe like the Dutch Republic and Denmark-Norway did their best not to get politically involved and steered clear from the escalating conflict between the two major European powers; However after 1756, a number of European powers sided with the French-Austria coalition against Prussia and Britain. 

     During the first two years of the Seven Years’s War in 1754 & 1755, the British Army did not fair well in the European theatre. North America’s territory dispute with the French was placed in secondary importance by the King of England due to his concentration of efforts in the European theatre. One could only assume his military strategists thoughts were victors in Europe would determine North America’s fate. The British Army’s military strategists main focus and military concentration was centered in Europe as to determine who would rise in global dominance of power. Unfortunately, the British military campaigns were ineffective and largely unsuccessful due to a conglomerate of reasons. Either the British troops were loosing engagements to an overwhelming number of French-European joint forces; or the British Army suffered from undernourishment because of unsecured European supply lines. To make things worse, the troops ended-up suffering considerable number of losses due to the plague and scurvy.  

By 1756, the war ended-up overflowing and expanding into all five continents drawing in every European great power. The conflict ended-up splitting Europe up into two coalitions. One was led by Great Britain and the other by France.

To exacerbate the Army’s fair to middling military situation; Great Britain’s major ally Austria in the midst of the war switched sides and aligned itself with France in 1756.


For Great Britain the first two years of the war proved to be both a political shamble due to poor foreign policy and domestic economic instability due to the funding of the war time effort. 

     In the political era of the 18th century, the Prime Minister and Parliamentary members were collectively responsible and accountable for any foreign policy agreements, protocols, measures, and procedural implementation to the the King of England liking. All the country’s domestic policies concerning the Empire were out of the King’s hands, and in the political domain of Great Britain’s Parliamentary members. This political division of responsibilities allowed the King to control the country’s foreign affairs and oversee foreign war time effort while staying in a favorable light with the public. This was in the King’s favor because it excused him from governing his subjects, and released him from sentiment of responsibility of how the country’s economy was fairing. This domestic freedom allowed the Hanover Monarchy to set the social climate through the Protestant religion’s governing social contracts. The Hanovers, Protestant members of Parliament, and community religious leaders often would act as pseudo political extensions of the King’s desires through his Court, churches, and aristocratic social clubs. The inner workings of these institutions would be the King’s use of members of his Royal family who held powerful political positions and their sway over indebted constituents who sought favor. These clubs like the Bean Club of Birmingham or the Manchester Club of Manchester often acted as an extension of the political and economic tendency of the Hanover King.


Most King & Constitution buttons became symbolic emblems of political support by of England’s Protestant gentry class. King & Constitution buttons were used as a form of showing support and viewed as political propaganda to favor the
King of England. The popular slogan continued was used through the first 3 reigns of the Hanover Dynasty, and ended with George III death in the early 19th century, circa 1820.

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***


George II’s Political Maneuvering to Overcome the Separation of Powers

     After the new Austrian-French alliance was announced, King George II of England needed to muster support for the war in the House of Lords and put political pressure on a growing anti-war opposition in the House of Commons. In Great Britain George II was able to work in a limited political fashion with Great Britain’s Prime Minister. In the first two years of the war Prime Minister Newcastle was limited by his Parliamentary constituents in the House of Lords who were who were concerned with the burden of increasing Britain’s taxes upon the public for the war effort. Without military victories over France it caused a negative public sentiment, and gave George II’s political opponents an anti-war support pseudo weapon. In a propaganda campaign to counter, George II was able to shift the blame away from British military strategists to his political opponents in Parliament, and rally the public’s discontent of how the war was going in Europe. King George II’s anti-Parliament propaganda campaign was successful, which led to the forced resignation of Prime Minister Newcastle. William Pitt the Elder who was Newcastle’s Secretary of State would continue serving in office for the Southern Department. King George II’s call for a vote of no confidence of Prime Minister Newcastle was a political move to advance his own foreign policy and war agenda. This would also enable him to advocate for the Duke of Devonshire who would act as a political ally in Parliament. All-in-all this was a carefully orchestrated political move by the King of England to give him legal power in Parliaments foreign policies and treaties.  

     By April of the following year King George’s foreign policy measures and political tactics had become increasingly objectionable by Secretary of State William Pitt the elder. The King grew tired of William Pitt’s continual political obstruction influence in the House of Lords, and viewed Pitt the elder as a lingering obstacle from Prime Minister Newcastle’s Administration. In a political move to wield more influential power over Parliament and construct a more policy favorable-working administration he surreptitiously had the new Prime Minister dismiss William Pitt the Elder from Secretary of State. The dismissal of William Pitt and the vote of no-confidence of Prime Minister Newcastle ended up having a backlashing affect on the King, and over the next three months no matter what political levers he pulled he wasn’t able to form another stable ministerial combination to work with Parliament. Fortunately, for Great Britain by the start of July in 1757, Prime Minister Newcastle was recalled and William Pitt would return as his Secretary of State.

King George II of Great Britain uses his European Influential Titles 

     George II was the last British monarch to be born outside of Great Britain. He was brought up and raised in northern Germany and where he was brought up speaking French and German and then later in his young adulthood he was schooled in English and Italian. He was said to have favored learning military history and battle tactics. After formally inheriting the British throne from his father George I he formally moved his residence to Great Britain to assume the throne and expand his current titles. In June of 1727 George II would become the King of Great Britain and King Ireland, as well as holding the title of the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg (Hanover) and a prince-elector of the Holy Roman Empire.  By working through his aristocratic connections he was able to gain a political entrance that wielded a strong political influence within Germany’s government and neighboring European countries to side with Great Britain and favor his war time effort. Since, the king’s role was limited in Great Britain’s Parliamentary foreign policy making, George II was able circumvent the Ministry’s Secretary of State and make a strategic European theatre military counter-move against the new Austrian-French alliance by making an Anglo-Prussian alliance with Fredrick the Great’s Prussia. The new treaty came to the benefit European countries by preventing foreign military forces from passing through the Holy Roman Empire. Meaning, it would prevent the armies of France from directly attacking Hanover Germany from its European neighbors. This new Anglo-Prussia alliance also separated war time responsibilities to Great Britain Army’s relief. It reduced the financial pressure on Britain’s economy and allowed Great Britain to now shift and concentrate their war efforts on the colonial possessions in North America while Prussia bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe. The treaty was signed by the delegates of the House of Lords at the Westminster Convention of 1756. This new alliance produced by King George II efforts was actually the first step in turning the tide of war for Great Britain’s Army, and reduced political pressures from his opponents even though Britain still lacked a stable Ministry. 


How George II was able to Manipulate Subject Support

     In his second move to gain public support George II was officially recognized by the Church as England’s official protector of the Protestant Constitution. He openly proclaimed to protect the Protestant religion’s interests in Europe, and was able to turn this belief into one of the major objective pro-war justifications for Great Britain’s involvement in the Seven Years War. Since, the Church of England or “Anglican Church” was the Protestant branch of Christianity it was able to back and bring support through “social synchronization” with the King’s policies. In this era, all the Bishops and higher religious leaders were appointed usually by their political leanings rather than for their spirituality abilities. In individual parishes or rural areas they wielded a great deal of influential power among the British subjects, newly landed gentry, and established aristocracy. Religious leaders were often known too, and did thwart legislation that was introduced by opponents of the king in Parliament. Meaning, since King George II was the Head of the Church of England, it gave him an avenue to further his war-time interests by indirectly placing constituent pressure on Parliamentary delegates.

The European Theatre

   As noted, the first couple of years of the Seven Years War did not go well for Great Britain’s Army. At home the British Parliament succumbed to a period of political instability, and struggled with financially supporting the war-time effort at the public’s expense. France continued to build new alliances with a number of European nations, and was able to combine their armies against the British Army on multiple strategic fronts. Opposing political oppositions in the House of Lords and the House of Commons created a public perception of political turmoil. Economic solvency issues hampered the war time effort, which was created earlier by the constant conflicts with Spain. When the Seven Years War broke out against France the citizens of Great Britain were not supportive in paying for a new military confrontation. The King would have to employ his influence and political mechanisms of favor to gain public support.

     In 1757, the political dysfunction and the war effort would change for the better with the restoration and reconfiguration of the new Castle-Pitt Ministry. Prime Minister Thomas Pelham-Holles and Secretary of State William Pitt divided-up and reorganized their official ministry responsibilities to capitalize on their political strengths. William Pitt came back to guide policies relating to war. He was known to be a strong war time leader, and have a great realistic perception of public mood. By the time King George III came into power in 1760, he was in sync with Pitts political aims and created new political affiliations at an unprecedented rate which helped increase the number of Pitt supporters in the House of Commons. Prime Minister Newcastle was able to come back to a second term due to his public popularity, and had a strong base of support in the House of Commons. He was often seen as the most influential and favorable person in government. In their 2nd administration they decided to divided-up their Ministry responsibilities between them based on their personal political strengths. Prime Minister New Castle would implement new economic policies and control the nations finances and patronage. While William Pitt would have full discretion over the war and the foreign policy he needed to implement for success.

     In a relatively short period of time they were able to turn-around and place the British government back on solid footings. William Pitt was able to successfully change the balance of power in Europe by implementing and introducing new foreign policies and building relations through his skillful diplomatic ambassadors. By 1759, there was a change in public sentiment and a favorable solicitude toward Parliament’s actions concerning the war effort. All through England it would become known as, “Annus Mirabillis” or the “Year of Miracles” by the people of Great Britain. This was the year in-which William Pitt’s new foreign policies would paid off with a notable string of British victories over French led opponents. This would put the country in an immensely strong military position for the next several years to war’s end. For William Pitt and King George III these momentous victories provided a public-wide country-wide unifying effect for heroic military figures. British military officers (like Royal Navy officer and Politician Admiral Francis Holburne or Charles Holmes who would go on to be Wolfe’s 3rd in Command in the North American Theatre) who’s victories became sensational news in British newspapers, and created a form of “military hero of victory worship” by the public; and into a countrywide juggernaut of new found positive support for the war effort. 


 Freemasonry would become a Universal Undercurrent Link From the Seven Years War,

and also through the American Revolution
Between Royalty and their Loyal Supporters & American Patriots & their Gentry Supporters

***   **   ***  **   ***

     The Duke of Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel was appointed was in command of the Hanoverian Army of Observation which was raised and funded by Britain (William Pitt) to protect west Germany. He only accepted the appointment on the condition he would have direct access to King George II who was ruler of Hanover & Great Britain. Meaning, his new commission placed him in Hanoverian service rather than British or Prussian Army. He was a Freemason initiated in 1740, in the Lodge of the “Three Globes in Berlin” and received the degree of Master Mason in 1743, at Breslau Poland. By spring of 1758, he was able to drive the French occupation out of Hanover and back across the River Rhine. He was able to drive the French Army southward, and went on to capture the southern French occupied town of Cassel. The combination of strategic victories by the Duke of Brunswick earned him the reputation as a talented General under King George II which boosted support by the British citizens for the King’s involvement in the German war. The additional resources provided by Secretary of State William Pitt forced France into an armistice agreement; which was considered a victory by the Parliament of Great Britain and its citizens. By 1762, with a stable public sentiment in support of King George III and William Pitt was able to provide the Anglo-German Army an increasing number of resources and reinforcements. Utilizing these additional resources they were able to repel the French led invasion into Western Germany, and repel their final attempt once again to invade Hanover in the Battle of Wilhelmsthal.

Even though King George III was said to never have visited Hanover, through birth he was concurrently the Duke and prince-elector of Brunswick-Luneburg (Hanover) in the Holy Roman Empire. His power base resinated from his two predecessors George I & George II who were brought up in Hanover and northern Germany. King George III inherited lineage title in the Holy Roman Empire allowed him to wield a stronger political influence compared to the Parliamentary limitations placed on being the King of Great Britain and King of Ireland. This worked to King George II


The North American Theatre

Austrian succession led into In North America the conflict was known in the British colonies as King George’s War, and did not begin until after formal war declarations of France and Britain reached the colonies in May 1744. The frontiers between New France and the British colonies of New England, New York, and Nova Scotia were the site of frequent small scale raids, primarily by French colonial troops and their Indian allies against British targets, although several attempts were made by British colonists to organise expeditions against New France. The most significant incident was the capture of the French Fortress Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island (Île Royale) by an expedition (29 April – 16 June 1745) of colonial militia organised by Massachusetts Governor William Shirley, commanded by William Pepperrell of Maine (then part of Massachusetts), and assisted by a Royal Navy fleet. A French expedition to recover Louisbourg in 1746 failed due to bad weather, disease, and the death of its commander. Louisbourg was returned to France in exchange for Madras, generating much anger among the British colonists, who felt they had eliminated a nest of privateers with its capture.



***   **   ***  **   *** 

Giovanni de Verranzo first explored the coasts of North America in 1524, from todays Carolinas up to Nova Scotia.
Samuel de Champlain who was a successful fur trader sailed into Saint Lawrence in 1603, and the next year in 1604, he had a hand in founding the first french colony of Port Royal. Four years later in 1608, he began a settlement in Quebec, commanding from a site location that controlled the narrowing of the St. Lawrence River estuary.

***   **   ***  **   *** 

The Territories of New France

     Great Britain’s entrance into the North American theatre for the French & Indian War officially comes after the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754, and the proceeding aftermath of George Washingtons official surrender of Fort Necessity. Prior to these two events England concentrated their war time efforts in Europe, while the French seized the opportunity to settle unclaimed land west of the Appalachian Mountains through Louisiana’s upper and lower territories and down along the Mississippi River to the Gulf.

 1750’s Map of Nouvelle France 

***   **   ***  **   ***

     Canada was the first to be claimed by the King of France in 1535, during the second voyage of Jacques Cartier. This would become the most developed colony in 16th & 17th Century, and was divided into three districts: Quebec, Trois-Rivieres on the confluence of the Saint Maurice and Saint Lawrence Rivers, and Villa Marie (Montreal) named after a triple peaked hill in the heart of the city. In the 17th century, successful settlements erupted in Arcadia that included eastern parts of Quebec, and the maritime provinces which extended out to modern day Maine and the Kennebec River. Plaisance, on the Atlantic seaboard developed into a flourishing colony on the Island of Newfoundland. Last, was Louisiane or Louisiana which officially came under France’s jurisdiction in 1682. It was named in honor of Louis XIV by French explorer Rene-Robert Cavelier. Louisiane was Frances most expansive territory, which stretched from the Great Lakes in northern America to the Gulf of Mexico. The French originally discovered the territory of Louisiana in 1682, they failed to solidify the claim by establishing a settlement. Their first permanent settlement wouldn’t come until 1714, when they established the city of Natchitoches along the Red River. All five colonies had their own political administration for governing, but Louisiana was used as the administrative political umbrella district for all of New France’s territories.

     Early French settlers in the 16th & 17th centuries New France came into being with prosperous fisheries on the Atlantic Ocean, and a host of staple agriculture products from the North American mainland. By the mid-seventeenth and early eighteenth century, the French began to settle and colonize the region establishing territory governments. They set-up small trading colonies throughout Louisiana and along the Mississippi River. Their idea was that if they control the Louisiana territory they could dominate the mouth of the Mississippi River for merchant trading of goods. By the 18th Century, as French pioneers from the 5 established New France colonies moved inland they opened-up a new trade market for deer skins and the fur (especially beaver). This blossomed into new heights of prosperity for French shipping merchants and securing the waterways became increasingly important. 

     When the Seven Years War erupted in Europe, France took pre-emptive measures in north America and formed military garrisons near settlements, and forts along the trade routes on the waterways. The French Soldiers and Canadian militia from the colonies were issued non-combative orders by Louis XV against the British. They were only allowed to do what is necessary in protecting New France’s colonies, and securing french trading routes along the waterways. Even though France was officially at war with Great Britain in Europe they were under strict order not to initiate any hostile or military actions against the British colonists who were caught encroaching on what was considered New France territory. The idea was to continue on and settle the region west of the Appalachian Mountains before the British could settle “unclaimed border lands”, which weren’t clearly marked or negotiated for in the treaty.

France’s Prequel to the French & Indian War

     Prior to the outbreak of the French and Indian War, French soldiers and colony militia were able to protect their trade market revenue stream of animal skins and furs from encroaching British settlers with relatively a small number of troops controlling the waterways of the Saint Lawrence River, the Ohio River, the Mississippi River, and lands surrounding the Great Lakes. By the mid-1740’s & early 50’s, protecting their exclusivity of Native American trade and hunting lands began to get exceedingly more difficult for French traders. British colonists started venturing west over the Appalachian Mountains in lure of speculative land grants, and the appeal of the North American skin & fur trade, which catered to the desire of the up and coming European gentry class. British were trampling on established trade relations with Native American tribes by offering them higher quality goods at cut-rate-trades. This aggravated the Canadian French traders who for over two centuries were able to curry favor and build strong trading partnerships with Native American tribes.

     The Native Canadian & North American Indian tribes found advantage and liked trading with the Canadian-French trading merchants. They took an immediate likening to their European merchandise, and over the years certain tribes became dependent upon french imported goods. They embraced French trade products to such a degree that they incorporated them in their own daily lives and became a way of life. 

The Charleville Musket 1717-1840
***   **   ***  **   ***

     There was all kinds of benefits for French settlers to provide Firelocks to the friendly Canadian tribes. French settlers learned during their early explorations of North America that if they supplied the friendly Canadian tribes with firelocks, that tribe would in-turn become an ally, and come to their defense and use these weapons against the unfriendly tribes who disliked the white man. Also, this in-turn helped the skin and fur trade flourish French investment capitalist merchants. They found that each musket purchased and given to a tribe hunter could bring in as many as 20 beavers per hunt. This was seen as a good return on their investment. 

***   **   ***  **   ***

     During the French & Indian War, the Canadian Indian tribes who were allied with the French colonists were armed with the finest French firelocks. They would use them in a strategic guerrilla warfare tactic of “ambush and attrition” against the British soldiers and Virginia militia. In the French eyes, arming their allied tribesmen would become an inexpensive and unofficial military asset of significant numbers. The Native American and Canadian Indians would become a major force for the British to contend with in their desire to expand westward into unclaimed regions of Ohio,Virginia, and western Pennsylvania.

***   **   ***  **   ***

     In the first few year the Seven Years War in Europe did not go well for Great Britain. The French used the opportunity to take advantage of disputed boundary lands in North America that was not clearly outlined in the Treaty of Utrecht. Canadian trading merchants who desired to expand their network into these unchartered and unclaimed lands were looking to open new relations with southern Native American tribes. The only way to accomplish this was to establish foothold settlements in Ohio’s uncharted territory. Ohio’s resources became increasingly important for trappers seeking fresh unharvested hunting grounds, and also for merchant traders seeking secure routes via land bridge and waterways between New France’s Canadian and American colonies.


 To the Canadian-French fur trappers, and traders of New France’s Colonies there was no Ohio territory, just Louisiane   ***   **   ***  **   ***

The Colonists of New France

    Throughout parts of the Louisiana’s American territory, the French skin and fur trappers established a good number of trading partnerships with friendly Native American Indian tribes. They established time honored relationships and had no interest in sharing their hunting lands or getting in competitive trade negotiations by new competing British rivals. This presented a problem for French traders who relied on time honored relationships with the Native Indian tribes. The British pioneers approached friendly Indian tribes themselves and started offering higher quality British goods at more equitable trades for Indian hunter’s skins and furs than the French had previously done. After awhile the British traders became very successful at convincing the Native Americans in the value of trading with them, and the French traders started to see a “trade value drop,” for their goods. Their time honored agreements were starting to be re-negotiated by more equitable seeking tribe hunters. The Canadian-French traders were starting to feel the sting of British competition, and felt their established time-honored trading partnerships dissolving.   

     The loss of market share in skin and furs trade caused a ripple effect throughout the French trade market. New France merchants immediately recognized the trickle down economic effect of cutting the supply of skins and furs on the European market which had a high demand. This might have been the catalyst, (Straw that broke camels back) which caused the French-Canadian government officials to become more aggressive in keeping British settlers from claiming territorial borders. French soldiers and Canadian militia were issued non-aggressive orders, but take legally acceptable maneuvers to address the problem of British settlements. In 1753, without calling for an all out war against the British like many of the colonists of New France colonists wanted, they began erecting a number of makeshift trader outposts, and building permanent military Forts in areas which were key trade shipping waterways.


The British Colonists

   At the time, the American British colonies were far more populated than the French colonies, and the British colonists were eager to expand westward into the new frontier over the Appalachian Mountains and into Ohio’s territory which was vastly unclaimed, unchartered, and more importantly unsettled. In the British pioneers eyes this was unclaimed land held untapped riches, and therefore wide open to all pioneering frontiersman who were willing to make a living in farming, or the skin and fur trade. In the 1740’s they watched British frontiersman, fur trappers, and land speculators start to venture across the Appalachian Mountains and into Louisiana’s territory from Virginia and Pennsylvania. The British started opening-up trade relations with Native Americans, and establish territory footholds on unclaimed lands. 

     In the 18th century, when much of America was still unclaimed, Virginian Land Barrons and speculators had the arrogant believe that since their charter is the oldest in the colonies it gave them some kind of “righteous land claim” due to their early establishment. This was contradictory to competing claims from the French, Native American tribes, and other British colonies who all sought their own reasoning for legal claim. Since their very little frontiersmen settling west of the Appalachian Mountains (aside from Native Americans) before the Seven Years War or British colonists in the 1740’s, boarder disputes that were not clearly defined in the Treaty of Utrecht wasn’t a problem with France or Great Britain. This did not become an issue until British explorers reported back to Virginia’s land Barrons of Ohio’s potential for prospecting, and hunting for skins and furs for the British trade market. The opportunity for Virginia gentry’s  to become venture capitalists in land speculation, and opening new relations with the Native American for trade was certainly profitably enticing. Their only obstacle was the colonists of New France who had previously claimed large swathes of land through Louisiana’s territory, but not claimed through settlement colonies.  

***   **   ***  **   ***

Robert Dinwiddie Colonial Royal Administrator for the Colony of Virginia 1751 to 1758

***   **   ***  **   ***

Robert Dinwiddie, Colonial Administrator for the Royal Colony of Virginia 

     Robert Dinwiddie was born in 1692, and came from an old respected Scottish family of money in Glasgow Scotland. As a young man after college he joined the British colonial service in 1727. Using his family ties and having the right aristocratic connections he was appointed as an Admiralty agent of the Island of Bermuda. He was in charge of collecting custom duties for the islands ports. Dinwiddie was pretty successful in his position and learned how to be a shrewd businessman who knew how to take advantage of situations and turn a profit. By the time he was thirty years old Dinwiddie had become one of the wealthiest men in Bermuda from merchant trading through the island’s ports.

     Money and wealth was not enough for Dinwiddie. He had a lust for power and wanted to become even more powerful in social and political circles of the aristocrats. Seeing his limitation of the island, he decided the only way to grow his ambitions was to take the opportunities that the British Empire offered the Gentry in the colonies in America. So, with his aristocratic ties to Parliamentary members in England he made arrangements to move to the British colonies in America. When Dinwiddie arrived in the colonies the enterprising young Scot was able to quickly make inroads though his English connections and leverage himself into a local position as a Customs Official. He no-doubtfully used the prestige of himself being as being an experienced Admiralty agent, and surmount that fact with his success as a wealthy trade merchant. At first, his new position as a colony Customs Official placated his personal need for British social stature and gave him a good taste of what real British Parliamentary controlling political power was on a grander scale then the small island of Bermuda. In a lust for more political power and influence he was able to gain a seat on the colonies governors council. From this lofty political position as a sort of controlling agent for Parliamentary interests he was given the proper official political platform to act in the capacity over both the Empire’s and colonies interests. Let us not forget to mention how it indirectly helped his personal business interests for creating wealth!

     By 1738, the enterprising young Scot would go on to be appointed as, “Surveyor General of Customs” in all of America’s southern ports. This placed him directly in-charge of all customs operations within the southern colonies ports. This included the administration and enforcement of British trade laws, and also overseeing the collection of monies collected through merchant tax duties that were collected from merchant ships entering into America’s southern ports. This new position and title gave Dinwiddie considerable sway amongst America’s rising gentry class and placed him in a position of power both inside and outside of the political realm. As a wealthy merchant who looked to prosper one can say he formed bonds of commercial interests within the public enterprising sector of the rich. He understood the ties created to his fortune were tied to political power of various offices and his lust for wealth drove him to higher political aspirations. By July of 1751, he was appointed as the new British Colony Administrator who would serve as the lieutenant governor of the Royal Colony of Virginia.

     When Dinwiddie first entered office he wasn’t received well by most Virginians. He was considered an outsider who was another Parliament administrator who came into office and radically changed established practices and policies of the way Virginia’s government did business. One of his first measures was to incorporate a new tax on land claims. Now when an individual wanted an officialize a land claim by the state of Virginia, they were charged one pistole for the governor’s office official signature and seal to make it legal. This shocked both Virginia land speculators who were selling unchartered land west of the Appalachian Mountains, and the Virginia pioneers who wanted to settle the new frontier. They saw this as an unfair tax and a political over-reach by Dinwiddie as the new Lieutenant Governor, which he acted on his own volition that was outside of the normal procedures of Great Britain’s Parliament.  

     No one could really say what deals were made in secret between aristocrats looking for political power and the men already in established positions of power. What we do know for certain is the results of the actions taken by men who come into power. In this instance and maybe to set a precedence for other colonies the British government welcomed Dinwiddie’s new idea to raise the “desperately needed source of revenue” for the Colony. Wealthy Virginians with speculative land stakes immediately push-backed against the new Lieutenant Governor’s tax act. The gentry were able to campaign and carouse public support for the repeal, and politically manipulate or influence representatives in the House of Burgesses to go to London, England and formally petition for the repeal of Dinwiddie’s new tax. Without any legal way to circumvent the land claim tax officially it carried on for a few years. Finally, in 1754, the Crown played both sides of the fence and reached a “Fair” compromise. They upheld that Dinwiddie’s land claim fee was legal, as not to loose a source of revenue stream or set a new precedence for other colonies; but the fee would now only apply on patent claims of 100 acres or more as not to effect the small pioneer. The tax would be directed at the wealthy land speculators and investors who were looking to capitalize on large holdings. 

Robert Dinwiddie’s Personal Interests: The Ohio Company of Virginia

     Just prior to taking office as Colonial Administrator of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie founded a land speculation company called, “The Ohio Company of Virginia” in 1747. This land speculation company was formed in his anticipation of young pioneering Virginians who wanted to move into the unchartered frontier lands of Ohio and be the first to settle the region. Dinwiddie’s goal was to prosper off the backs of frontier settlers by first selling them the land, and then provide them with the connections to trade British goods with the Native American Indian tribes. Through the Ohio company he would be able to provide them the land first using capital investors funds, and then provide merchant trading connections through his previous connections as Surveyor General in America’s southern ports. One could say his land speculation company was a brilliant idea which would maneuver his company into the foundation stage for benefiting off of Ohio’s new emerging market for agriculture or crops, deer skins, and furs.

Virginia’s Aristocratic Venture Capital Investors 

     Prior to his political appointment of Lieutenant Governor, Robert Dinwiddie was already known as a man of noted stature that came from of old family money. This enabled him to quickly cultivate aristocratic friendships that led into relationships with venture capital land speculation ideas with Virginia’s most powerful and established families. Venture capitalist investors saw Dinwiddie’s political position as an asset in overcoming any future legal obstacles, and a partnership with an entrepreneur with a proven successful track record. Dinwiddie was successful trade merchant who had the right connections and was known to preemptively seize financial opportunities from the new market of Virginia pioneers who set out westward to claim land and set-up trade in agriculture and furs with Native Americans.

     In 1749, one of Dinwiddie’s investors George Mercer petitioned the King of England for land in the Ohio Valley. In a strategic move against the French and to expand the British Empire King George granted the company 500,000 acres in the Ohio Valley between the Kanawha and Monongahela Rivers. Part of the agreement was that the Ohio company would construct a fort and provide a garrison to protect any settlements “at their own expense.” This land grant would position Dinwiddie into the early stages of a semi-formal trade agreement with the Native American Indians of the Ohio area. Unfortunately, this land grant would not be enough for Dinwiddie to act in any type of official capacity under the Crowns authority to secure his economic interests against any kind of future Canadian-French encroachment. He foresaw another type of political power was needed to advance the interests of the Ohio company. In 1751, Robert Dinwiddie leveraged his position as Surveyor General of Customs and reputation as a platform to secure an appointment as lieutenant governor and colonial administrator for the Royal Colony of Virginia. From this official position he would be able to manipulate any future land disputes legally to his advantage; and also control any matters dealing with the expansion of Virginia’s interests into the Ohio valley.   

Rival Wealthy Landholders of Virginia Take Aim at the Ohio’s Territory

     Robert Dinwiddie wasn’t the only opportunist who had sights on Ohio’s uncharted and unsettled region. The Virginia’s aristocracy had either sent their own (or herd back from) frontier explorers about the unlimited opportunities that the unchartered and unsettled region had to offer. In the late 1740’s, the wheels of opportunity were turning within Virginia’s elite class, and even caught the speculative interests of both Lawrence and Augustine Washington. In 1748, Thomas Lee along with Lawrence and Augustine Washington came in as investors with Robert Dinwiddie. They helped map out speculative lands which had the potential to be profitable, and expanded the company’s mission statement to include prospecting and trading interests of wealthy Virginian investors.


 George Washington’s 5″ Brass Compass. This surveyors tool was used to make calculations in conjunction with his Gunter Scale below.

***   **   ***  **   ***

 There was 16 metal points embedded in the wood in particular locations; when used with the compass it would make amazingly accurate computations. George Washington’s Gunter Scale Surveying Tool was 24″  long by 1.5″  wide.

A precursor to the modern slide ruler.

***   **   ***  **   ***

     As a young adult George Washington became very familiar with the Ohio Company of Virginia’s internal workings because he actually surveyed parts of the Ohio Valley for his two older brothers. When George was a young man he wanted to be a British Naval officer, but his older half-brother Lawrence talked him into being a land surveyor. Frontier surveying at this time was a prestigious and lucrative business in Virginia. It was on par with being in medicine, law, or even going into British military service. A diligent frontier surveyor who would only have to work a few months out of the year could easily clear £100 or more. This was more than a planter or tradesmen could make working a whole year. Around 16 years old he would make his first surveying trip to the Shenandoah Valley. By the time he was 17 he obtained a surveyorship for the county of Culpeper VA, and this officially kicked-off his official career as a practicing professional land surveyor. Even though officially he received a commission appointing him surveyor of the newly formed Culpeper County from the President of the College of William and Mary, he owed much of his early career to the Fairfax family. Lord Fairfax pulled-some-strings with family members to get him the position. At the time Lord Fairfax was providing new grants of land ( a land grant by Charles II in 1649, then inherited by Thomas Fairfax in 1719) for Virginia’s Northern Neck Proprietary. This encompassed all the lands bounded by the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers within colonial Virginia. He was trying to encourage or place his business interests to meet the swarms of settlers and land speculators who wanted to lay claim to Virginia’s western frontier. For Washington it was a career that offered good pay as well as a certain amount of prestige. 

The Loyal Company of Virginia

     Robert Dinwiddie was not alone in his future vision of opening-up Ohio Valleys unsettled frontier region to young pioneers. The affluent gentry of Virginia wheels were in motion and were seeking all types of avenues for venture capital opportunities. These ideas included land speculation for frontier settlers, new agriculture plantations close to waterways, merchandise trading with Native American Indians for skins and furs, or even having their children become land surveyors which paid handsomely. 

     On July 12, 1748 the executive body of the Virginia House of Burgesses approved a land grant of 800,000 acres west of the Blue Ridge Mountains on the “western waters,” which was an uncharted piece of land located partially on the Ohio Valley’s watershed. In 1749, a small consortium of investors materialized to benefit from the land grant and opened a land speculation company called, “The Loyal Company of Virginia” for claiming rights. The land speculation company opened-up roughly about the same time as Robert Dinwiddie’s Ohio Company of Virginia, but with a slightly different mission statement. As part of the land grant agreement they were to charter and file surveys on the portions of land they wanted to claim. The primary founder of the Loyal Land Company was John Lewis who was a prominent pioneer in the Shenandoah Valley. The management and direction of the company was concentrated mostly between three of the thirty-one founding investors, Peter Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson’s father), Joshua Fry, and Thomas Walker. At the time Peter Jefferson was already a well known cartographer and surveyor. Joshua Fry was a soldier, surveyor, adventurer, and mapmaker. Thomas Walker was a well known explorer who had taken many trips into southwestern Virginia (Kentucky). 


The 1751 Fry-Jefferson Map depicting, “The Great Waggon Road to Philadelphia.”

***   **   ***  **   ***

   In 1750, Lewis Burwell who was President of the Governor’s Council took on the responsibility of acting governor while both the governor and lieutenant governor were away from Virginia. During his brief interim the French Canadians were increasing their presence in Ohio’s frontier. At the end of Queen Anne’s War in 1713, the signed Treaty of Utrecht had determined the boundaries of the French and British claims to lands in North America, but it was not specific enough to prevent territorial disputes between the two countries. Captain John Smith and Augustine Herman published two prototype maps in the 17th century of Virginia, but only focused on the Tidewater region. George Montagu Dunk, Earl of Hailfax who served as President on The Board of Trade determined that a more accurate map of the Virginia was needed. At this point there was no official map that properly illustrated all the rivers, lands, or mountain ranges in-which the colony of Virginia held in its possession. Meaning, Land Barrons such as, Hailfax and investors in land speculation companies could not legally sell lands under British and French government contention. The one dynamic which is not often overlooked is that all these wealthy Virginia families lived in a very close-knit society. They all in one form or another had to have worked through the colony’s administrator in one form or another, or they worked in concert through their gentry-political affiliations in Virginia’s House of Burgesses.


A hand-drawn cartouche by Peter Jefferson and Joshua Fry. An excerpt of of everyday life in the Colony of Virginia

***   **   ***  **   ***

     Lewis Burwell who was acting as the interim governor of Virginia responded by commissioning Peter Jefferson and Joshua Fry to prepare a map of the colony of Virginia. Unfortunately, due to the urgency for its use they were forced to make one in haste without giving them the proper time needed to make a map from scratch from start and finish. So, what Peter Jefferson and Joshua Fry did was cleverly create a map using a conglomerate of already known maps of Virginia. They took their own past survey experiences, manuscript maps, and all other other poorly detailed published maps along with explorer field notes to produce the 1st official map of the Colony of Virginia. The map ended-up including the whole Providence of Maryland, parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and North Carolina. When the Fry-Jefferson map was published in 1753, it was the first map type to accurately depict the Allegheny Mountains, state landmarks, the entire Virginia river system, and of course Virginia’s part of the Great Waggon Road to Philadelphia. 


 1754 to 1760 The French-Canadians clash with British colonists over territory ownership in the French & Indian War

***   **   ***  **   ***

Nouvelle France French Troops & Canadian Militia

     The French started building a line of forts for protecting their settlement and trade routes. They started with Fort Presque Isle on Lake Erie, followed by Fort Le Boeuf on the “Fork of the French Creek” (a tributary of the Allegheny River), and Fort Machault on the Allegheny River. Fort Le Boeuf was positioned as a midway location to help portage supplies, deer skins, beaver furs, and trade good items from merchant boats on Lake Erie (then over land to the fort before going on) to other destinations on the Allegheny, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. The idea of the line of forts was to successfully facilitate and ensure security along established french settlements and trade routes. The forts also they help legitimize a de facto “Adverse Possession” by establishing a Canadian-French military presence on unclaimed lands that surround the trade waterways. This de facto french land claim could then later be legally propositioned that even though it was not specifically mapped out by the Treaty of Utrecht forty years earlier, they had established a significant presence at significant cost. 


***   **   ***  **   ***

The Fur Trader & Merchant William Trent 

The French and British were both keen to gain a foothold and advantage in Ohio’s region. The Virginians believed that since Virginia is the oldest enduring colony in North America they had some kind of de facto official land claim to Ohio’s territory and its rivers. In 1744, William Trent an English fur trader and merchant from Pennsylvania purchased vast amounts of lands in the Ohio region west of the Appalachian Mountains. His idea was to sell his land in parcels to be developed by Anglo-American settlers. It was a slow process, but he became a key figure in encouraging westward expansion past the Appalachian barrier. By the mid 1740’s, William Trent took on an Irish Immigrant partner named George Croghan. They set up a very successful trading post on the forks of Ohio’s rivers with several Native American Indian tribes. Once the skins and furs were acquired they would be shipped into Europe by Trents father who was a very wealthy shipping merchant in Philadelphia.


***   **   ***  **   ***

The Reasoning & Power Behind Robert Dinwiddie’s Precipitating Actions

    As the administrator of the Royal Colony of Virginia Robert Dinwiddie was viewed as a man of unwavering Crown loyalty. He always presented himself with deportment, which reflected his stature as a Crown appointed government official. He was very shrewd in his political decisions, while supporting his intentions as being a higher sense of duty for the greater good of the colony. When he first entered office and instituted new policies and taxes Virginians were taken back and concerned he was not serving the citizens of the Colony’s best interests and a pawn of Great Britain’s Parliament. 

     Since Royal Governors were usually absent from their posts most of the time, this enabled Dinwiddie to act as the de facto head of the colony for all administrative operations. He would use the powers of his office and its official capacity to promote and ensure the interests of his own land speculation company as well other venture capitalists from the Gentry class. This helped him achieve personal prosperityhe often intermingled the official capacity of his office with his own financial stakes in his Ohio Land speculation company. 

     There was also another side to his personality that had no problem using his political ties and office to promote and ensure the success of his land speculation company.  

     In 1753, lieutenant governor Dinwiddie learned that the French had built a series of forts coming down out of Canada into Ohio’s region. One can say he was acting in his own capitalistic interests, but there must have been an allegiance to the Crown’s interests as well. We are the sum of all the parts we play in life, and we instinctively use what assets are available to us due to our own self interests. On one hand Dinwiddie felt these new French forts could be legally seen as de jure settlements, which were directly threatening the British Empire’s land claims west of Virginia. This in-turn would affect certain members of Virginia’s ruling-class aristocracy such as Lord Halifax who’s family had been legally issued a land charter by the King. As a snowballing effect it would change the future prosperity of all Virginians looking for their own pursuits of happiness. From Virginia’s Gentry who were venture capitalists investing in land speculation companies to offshoot pursuits in surveying, prospecting, farming, and the skin and fur trade business with Native Americans.

Robert Dinwiddie’s Three Prong Attack

Robert Dinwiddie was a clever individual who took preemptive steps in protecting both the British Empires and Virginia’s interests. He developed a three prong military strategy. First, before officially addressing the House of Burgesses and asking for funding he issued a Captains commission on his own authority to his Ohio company employee and frontiersman William Trent. His orders were to raise a small capable force who were capable of moving quickly through Virginia’s dense unchartered wilderness between Williamsburg and the Forks of the Allegheny and Monongahela. Once at the Forks they were to immediately begin construction of a fortification on the Ohio Rivers. 

As both an official agent of the British Crown who was acting in the official capacity of administrator of the Royal Colony of Virginia; Robert Dinwiddie decided to act in the best interests of Virginia without addressing his concerns first with the members of the House of Burgesses.  

The governor therefore also issued a captain’s commission to Ohio Company employee William Trent, with instructions to raise a small force capable of moving quickly through the wilderness and virgin forest that lie between Williamsburg and the Forks. Once there, they were to immediately begin construction of a fortification on the Ohio. Dinwiddie issued these instructions on his own authority, without even asking for funding from the Virginia House of Burgesses until after the fact.[20] Trent’s company arrived on site in February 1754, and began construction of a storehouse and stockade with the assistance of Tanacharison and the Mingos.[20][21] In response, the Canadians sent a force of about 500 men, Canadian, French, and Indians under Claude-Pierre Pécaudy de Contrecœur (rumors reaching Trent’s men put its size at 1,000). On April 16, they arrived at the forks; the next day, Trent’s force of 36 men, led by Ensign Edward Ward in Trent’s absence, agreed to leave the site.[22] The Canadians tore down the British works, and began construction of the fort they called Fort Duques



William Trent (1715—c.1787) was a fur trader and merchant based in colonial Pennsylvania. He was commissioned as a captain of the Virginia Regiment in the early stages of the French and Indian War, when he served on the western frontier with the young Lt. Colonel George Washington. Trent led an advance group who built forts and improved roads for troop access and defense of the western territory. He was later promoted to the rank of major.

In 1744, Trent purchased vast lands in the Ohio Country west of the Appalachian Mountains. From then through the 1780s, he was a key figure in encouraging westward expansion by Anglo-American settlers past the Appalachian barrier, as he wanted to sell his land in parcels for development.


     In December of 1753, Robert Dinwiddie as well as other colony officials received orders from Great Britain to do what is necessary to protect his Majesty’s possessions in North America. Taking peaceful preemptive measures, the lieutenant governor decided to send Major George Washington who was a commissioned British officer at the time to Fort Boeuf. His orders were to hand deliver an official letter by the colonial administrator to the fort’s commanding officer requesting the French soldiers abandon the fort and leave the Ohio Valley.


Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant Governor of the Virginia Colony, thought these forts threatened extensive claims to the land area by Virginians (including himself) of the Ohio Company. In late autumn 1753, Dinwiddie dispatched a young Virginia militia officer named George Washington to the area to deliver a letter to the French commander at Fort Le Boeuf, asking them to leave. Washington was also to assess French strength and intentions. After reaching Fort Le Boeuf in December, Washington was politely rebuffed by the French.

Fort Duquesne, built at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers which forms the Ohio River, was considered strategically important for controlling the Ohio Country,[2] both for settlement and for trade. The English merchant William Trent had established a highly successful trading post at the forks as early as the 1740s, to do business with a number of nearby Native American villages. Both the French and the British were keen to gain advantage in the area.

As the area was within the drainage basin of the Mississippi River, the French had claimed it as theirs. They controlled New France (Quebec), the Illinois Country along the Mississippi, and La Louisiane (the ports of New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama, and environs).



In 1753, Dinwiddie learned the French had built Fort Presque Isle near Lake Erie and Fort Le Boeuf, which he saw as threatening Virginia’s interests in the Ohio Valley. In fact, he considered Winchester, Virginia, to be “exposed to the enemy”; Cumberland, Maryland, was only to be fortified the next year.

**Dinwiddie sent an eight-man expedition under George Washington to warn the French to withdraw. Washington, then only 21 years old, made the journey in midwinter of 1753–54. Washington arrived at Fort Le Boeuf on 11 December 1753. Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre, commandant at Fort Le Boeuf, a tough veteran of the west, received Washington politely, but rejected his ultimatumIn January 1754, even before learning of the French refusal to decamp, Dinwiddie sent a small force of Virginia militia to build a fort at the forks of the Ohio River, where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers merge to form the Ohio (present-day Pittsburgh). The French quickly drove off the Virginians and built a larger fort on the site, calling it Fort Duquesne, in honour of the Marquis de Duquesne, the then-governor of New France.

Dinwiddie named Joshua Fry to the position of Commander-in-Chief of colonial forces. Fry was given command of the Virginia Regiment and was ordered to take Fort Duquesne, then held by the French. During the advance into the Ohio Country, Fry suddenly fell off his horse and died from his injuries on 31 May 1754 at Fort Cumberland, upon which the command of the regiment fell to Washington.

In early spring 1754, Dinwiddie sent Washington to build a road to the Monongahela. After having attacked the French at the Battle of Jumonville Glen, Washington retreated and built a small stockade, Fort Necessity, at a spot then called “Great Meadows”, by the Youghiogheny River, eleven miles southeast of present-day Uniontown. Here he encountered the French in a skirmish on 3 July 1754 and was forced to surrender. Dinwiddie was subsequently active in rallying other colonies in defense against France and ultimately prevailed upon the British to send General Edward Braddock to Virginia with two regiments of regular troops, in part with a letter to Lord Halifax on 25 October 1754 containing these words:

Furthermore, the Ohio Company was required to construct a fort and provide a garrison to protect the settlement at their own expense. But the land grant was rent and tax free for ten years to facilitate settlement.[7]

Dinwiddie named Joshua Fry to the position of Commander-in-Chief of colonial forces. Fry was given command of the Virginia Regiment and was ordered to take Fort Duquesne, then held by the French. During the advance into the Ohio Country, Fry suddenly fell off his horse and died from his injuries on 31 May 1754 at Fort Cumberland, upon which the command of the regiment fell toDinwiddie’s actions as lieutenant governor are cited by one historian as precipitating the French and Indian War, commonly held to have begun in 1754. He wanted to limit French expansion in Ohio Country, an area claimed by the Virginia Colony and in which the Ohio Company, of which he was a stockholder,[5] had made preliminary surveys and some small settlements. This version of history is disputed when one notices that Father Le Loutre’s War in Acadiabegan in 1749 and did not end until the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755. In fact, Thomas Jefferys, the Royal Geographer of the day, produced a pamphlet out of his Parliamentary testimony that explained the misconduct of the French in what amounted to a Treaty of Utrecht boundary dispute.

Dinwiddie ordered Washington to begin raising a militia regiment to hold the Forks of the Ohio, in present-day Pittsburgh, a site Washington had identified as a fine location for a fortress.[19] However, unlike the French, Washington and his Virginia regiment could not easily reach the Forks via river. .[23]

French had relied upon various Native American groups living within the interior of New France to hunt and process deer skins and furs, then exchange them with other tribes further east. French ships traded for beaver and other skins at Tadoussac on the St. Lawrence River downstream from Quebec.

When Major Washington returned to Williamsburg from Fort Le Boeuf, he informed lieutenant governor Dinwiddie that the French refused to leave the Fort and evacuate the Ohio territory. 

No one can say for certain what emotions governor Dinwiddie’s prosperous ambitions he felt were thwarted by the French’s refusal to leave or emotions he was feeling, but his next strategic countermoves would play a pivotal role in shaping George Washington’s early military career and also igniting the French and Indian War.        

No one can say for certain, but one thing is for sure, that his personal entrepreneurial interest in the founding of the Ohio Company of Virginia for land speculation could only be a successful venture through the British Empire’s plan for expansion into North America. One could reasonably say that him being an opportunist he wanted to secure his investments and landholdings in his speculation company; on the other hand his scenes of duty as Governor of the Royal Colony of Virginia forced him to act in best interests of the colony and the British Empire. So, prior too sending Washington to the fort he took preemptive measures by sending a constant stream of communications back to London detailing the French’s military encroachment into the Ohio Valley, hereby spurring the King to take official action. 

George Washington was given orders to make the long trek from Williamsburg, Virginia to the Fort Le Boeuf that was within an uncharted or unfamiliar region of Ohio. Major Washington decided to ask several individuals which he thought would best guide and help him on his journey. To help navigate his way, he asked (or was recommended by Dinwiddie)  Christopher Gist who worked for Dinwiddie and his older brothers as an explorer for the Ohio land speculation company. Grist was a successful woodsman on the frontier, and a land surveyor who identified parsecs of lands within the Ohio Valley for settlement. Second, as a mediator for the Native Americans and French he thought it best to stop and ask two Iroquoian “Mingo’s.” Chief Tanacharison the Half-King, and Sechem to join them on their journey. These Mingo’s were known to have an amiable pact with the French military, and a lucrative trading relationship with French merchants. After a long trek through the wilderness and several near death experiences, Washington’s small entourage finally reached Fort Le Boeuf, and met with the regional French commander Jacques Legardeur de Saint Pierre. Saint Pierre was a french gentleman during his meeting with Major Washington, and told him he didn’t have the command authority to call for an official military evacuation of the Fort or a directive to leave the area from the French government. He explained that his letter should have been properly addressed to his commanding officer in Canada. Saint Pierre politely told Washington without further official orders he would have to respectfully turn down the Royal governor’s request for evacuation on Britain’s behalf. The question i pose is what was George Washington’s true motivation and his personal thoughts to the refusal? Was he really acting only in the interest of the Crown? Or was he using the cover of the Crown’s authority to successfully ensure Dinwiddie and his brothers speculative investments in their Ohio Company’s land speculation venture? At this point, one has to also factor-in the economic cost to the investors of the loss of the 500,000 acres land grant to the company by the British Crown. this was considered prime real estate between the Kanawha and Monongahela River. Both were seen as important waterways for the transportation for trade.


Facsimile of George Washington’s hand drawn map into the Ohio Region in 1754

***   **   ***  **   *** 

The Half-King Tanacharison 

 At the time, George Washington was commissioned as  a Major and 2nd in command of the Colony of Virginia’s militia.  On his journey, Washington stoped at Logstown, Pennsylvania to ask Seneca tribe Chieftain Tanacharison to act as a guide and spokesman to the French whom he had built previously built trade relations with. At the time Tanacharison was known to European Americans as a, “Half-King” who was seen as influential person to both the Indians and French military. Tanacharison agreed to go along with Washington and his militia, and return the symbolic Wampum he received from French Captain Philippe-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire. Wampums are a string of white shell beads which were used as a gift exchange, and early colonists adopted it as a currency trading with them. Even though he accepted the French gift, Tanacharison was known to be a strong francophobe, and decided to travel with Lt. Col. Washington to meet with the French captain at Fort le Boeuf in Waterford Pennsylvania. The French captain’s first thoughts was to kill Tanacharison for his double-cross, but instead he masked his anger that he sided with the British in a change of heart, and used the diplomacy of alcohol to get the Half-King drunk on brandy. By the time the keg was empty Tanacharison was too drunk to give back the ceremonial Wampum peace offering. Washington continued on with the Half-King to other French outposts asking that they vacate the Pennsylvania-Ohio territory, but to no avail. 


The two row Wampum Belt embodies an insight of the Haudonsaunee (Iroquois or Six Nations) about how neighboring nations can co-exist. One row symoolizes an Indian canoe carrying everything Indian’s believe to be true. The other row is the Europeans ship, carrying everything they believe to be true. The belt means: “We are traveling on the river of life together site by side. One side isn’t going to get ahead of the other; people on the ship aren’t going to steer the canoe; people in the canoe aren’t going to steer the ship.”

***   **   ***  **   ***

 In the Spring of 1754, a British fort under construction was being strategically placed at the convergence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers as a jumping point to the French Fort Duquesne, which controlled the waterways of North America’s New France. George Washington was a 22 year old native Virginian who was commissioned as a British officer in the command of the Virginia Militia. He was given orders to demand France’s evacuation of the area and engage the French-Canadian forces in battle if necessary. When the French refused to leave,  Colonel Washington led a sneak attack with a mixture of Iroquois Indians and some volunteers of the Virginia Militia 

surrender of of Fort Necessity on July 3rd 1754, by Lieutenant Colonel George Washington. George Washington was a young 22 year old native Virginian who was commissioned as a British officer, and was placed in command of the Colony of Virginia’s militia. After the Jumonville Glen incident with the French Canadians and the Indians Colonel Washington expected some kind of immediate retribution. Quickly using only part of his Virginia regiment of about 150 men they began to construct a fort, which Washington named Fort Necessity. His plan was to fortify and garrison his Virginia militia at Great Meadows, and use it as a strategic jumping point to Fort Duquesne and the Ohio Valley. One hundred British regulars under the command of James MacKay came to help support Washington’s Virginia militia, but instead of making camp with the Virginians they camped separately outside the fort. As the Virginians were digging a trench in the mud three columns of Canadian soldiers and Indians under the leadership of Louis Coulon de Villiers advanced down the hill towards the makeshift fort. Coulon made a slight navigational miscalculation of the fort’s location which gave Washington some extra moments to call and assemble his Virginia troops back into the fort and prepare for the attack.


 Native American Polled Tomahawk 18″ wood haft is red ochre stripped with blacksmith made iron head

***   **   ***  **   ***

The Battle of Jumonville Glen 

 In June of 1754, ensign Joseph Jumonville was posted to Fort Duquesne with his older half brother Captain Louis Coulon de Villiers. Jumonville took a small detachment of 35 men from the fort on a mission to scout out the fort surroundings. The French-Canadian Militia were under standing orders from France that they were not allowed to initiate any hostile actions toward British soldiers, but could defend in an attack. Chief Tanacharison’s native American scouts reported that French soldiers came down from the fort, and were camped in a small valley (later called Jumonville Glen). Unaware of the French directive and fearing the unscrupulous motives of the French Canadian Militia, Chief Tanacharison told Washington a hostile party was sent from the fort to ambush his encampment at Glen Meadows. Washington was convinced of the possibility of an ambush based on the prior French behavior. He took a small detachment of 40 men to make a pre-emptive attack on the French soldiers camped in the glen. It is unclear if the British or French fired the first shots of the battle, but it only lasted for 15 minutes. Washington’s small detachment would have its first British victory over the French-Canadian Militia in North America. Ten French soldiers were killed and 21 injured from musket wounds. Ensign Jumonville was injured and taken a prisoner of war, and extended the customary courtesies due to any captured military officer. Washington wanting know what the French’s squadron’s orders were attempted to interrogate Jumonville, but the language barrier made communication difficult for him to understand. Chief Tanacharison supposedly understood what Jumonville was saying or was simply was infuriated by Jumonville’s contempt during the interrogation. Without warning the Half-King viciously struck Jumonville in the head with a tomahawk killing him instantly, and the other nine French captives were scalped. A survivor of the raid made it back to Fort Duquesne and reported the Battle that happened at the glen. 

 *** ** *** ** ***

Fort Necessity


Fort Necessity

Knowing a counter attack by the French was only a matter of time, Washington fortified his camp at great meadows waiting for the rest of his militia reinforcements to arrive.

Coulon strategically positioned his troops into the surrounding woods, but stayed within musket firing range of the fort. Washington quickly realized that within the fort his strategic position was in jeopardy. He needed to dislodge the Canadians and Indians from their covered positions in the forest. So, he order a direct assault with his entire force charging across the open field.  Seeing the assault coming, Coulon ordered his soldiers, led in front by Indians, to charge directly at Washington’s line. The fighting was furious and Washington ordered his men to hold their ground but fled back to the fort in the heat of the battle. MacKay’s British regulars who were more disciplined under fire obeyed Washington’s command. Washington and the British soldiers were quickly outnumbered and forced Washington to order a retreat back to the fort.

Coulon waited outside the fort patiently, but didn’t know when British reinforcements would arrive. So under a white flag of truce he sent two men and a translator to negotiate a surrender. Coulon only asked for the surrender of the garrison, and the Virginians could go back peaceably to Virginia. He also warned that if he did not surrender immediately the Indians who were not under his control might storm the fort and scalp the entire garrison. Washington back was against the wall. His men had broken into the liquor supply at the onset of the negotiations and started getting drunk fearing the end was coming. Washington’s men were poorly supplied and his provision hut was completely depleted. Washington and MacKay decided it was best to accept the terms and both signed the surrender document. As the remains Virginia and British forces were leaving they burned the fort to the ground. Louis Coulon de Villers greatest claim to fame as a French officer is the fact that he is the only military opponent to force George Washington to surrender. This was George Washington’s first military command, and the French vilified him as an epitome of dishonor. In the aftermath Washington resigned his British commission and returned to his family’s plantation.


Major General Edward Braddock Commander-in-Chief
of the British Army in North America

*** ** *** ** ***

   In the wake of Washington’s defeat, Major General Edward Braddock of the Cold Stream Guards was named “Generalissimo” of all his Majesty’s troops and colonial land forces in North America. On February 20th 1755, he landed in Hampton a colony of Virginia with two regiments of British regulars. He was to strategically implement a massive British offense campaign against the French Army and allied Indian forces. General Braddock’s North American continent campaign was divided into two strategic goals. The first would be the capture Fort Duquesne in New France. This fort was extremely vital to the french military because it allowed them to control their large colonies in Acadia (Canada) and the Louisiana Territory with a small military presence. This also allowed them to control the waterways on the Saint Lawerence River, Great Lakes, Ohio River, and the Mississippi River to cultivate strong political and economic trading relationships with the Native Indians. 

     General Braddock’s first order of business was to plan, organize, and outfit provisions for a 110 mile expedition through the American Frontier. This was an enormous logistical challenge at the time to transport troops, provisions, equipment, and heavy cannons across and through the densely wooded areas of the Allegheny Mountains and into western Pennsylvania. Benjamin Franklin was able to help assistance General Braddock in procuring wagons and supplies; and the young Daniel Boone and Daniel Morgan volunteered to be his Wagoners. George Washington who was familiar with the Pennsylvania territory had volunteered to serve as General Braddock’s aide-de-camp. Among the British officers would would be joining the expedition was Thomas Gage and Charles lee.


On January 14 1755, the regiment of about 500 men embarked at Cork in Ireland
to sail to North America as part of General Braddock’s force.
On February 20, it arrived at Hampton in Virginia.

*** ** *** ** ***

     On May 29th 1755, General Braddock set out from Fort Cumberland in Maryland with a column of 2100 strong. It consisted of two regular line regiments (the 44th & 48th) and 500 militiamen who volunteered from several colonies.The expedition progressed slowly because Braddock felt it was necessary to construct a road to Fort Duquesne in-order to effectively supply the position he expected to capture and hold at the Forks of the Ohio River. Because there was a shortage of healthy draft animals the British Army was only able to advance about two miles a day hereby extending out the journey. After a little more than two months of slow progression, General Braddock finally crossed the Monongahela River on July 9th 1755; and positioned his army about 10 miles south from Fort Duquesne without any French of Indian opposition. That night the the Ojibwa and Pottawatomie Indians sent a delegation to request a conference. General Braddock sent George Washington and his chief scout Lieutenant Frasier. The Indians requested that the British halt their advance so they could negotiate a peaceful withdraw of the french from the Fort. Both George Washington and Frasier who thought it best to avoid a military conflict if possible, and recommended the Indian’s offer. Unfortunately, General Braddock demurred and refused to give the french the opportunity of a peaceable.

     The next day General Braddock ordered an advance guard of 300 grenadiers with two canons under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Gage to proceed ahead and take-up a position. Before they left, George Washington tried to warn Braddock that the French and Indians fought different than the open-field style engagements the British were trained in, but Braddock insisted in fighting like a gentleman. Gage’s advance guard unexpectedly came upon the French and Indians who were on their way down to the river to set-up an ambush. A skirmish immediately erupted in-which the French Commander, Beaujeu was killed by the first volley of musket fire. The British were able to set off their canons and hold off the Indians temporarily while some French Canadians fled back to their fort. A French officer named Jean-Daniel Dumas resumed command, and rallied the remaining French and Indian forces of about 400 to stay and fight the British advance. Realizing his forces were over matched, and the tide would soon turn in the favor of the Canadian-French Gage’s group fell back in haste until they collided with the main body of Braddocks force who were advancing up the road after hearing the musket shots and cannon fire. 

An Embossed Paper Die Stamp Crest of the 48th Regiment
On January 14 1755, the regiment also embarked at Cork in Ireland to sail to North America to be part of General Braddock’s force on February 20th 1755, it arrived at Hampton in Virginia.

*** ** *** ** ***

 Unfortunately, for the British Army they were not going to be in an open field engagement in-which they were specifically trained in. They would be forced to fight in a narrow roadway cutting the breath of their numbers and hereby reducing the force of their action. Also, to make things worse, they were caught off guard in what military tactical historians would latter dub as, “An Encounter Battle” or a “Meeting Engagement.” This is when a combat action occurs when a moving force engages the enemy in an unexpected time and place. Even though the military detail at the time feel that they were ambushed by the enemy, in actuality they weren’t, because beachside is surprised by the swiftness of the encounter. General Braddock made the mistake of not falling back to a wider open space to fortify his position. Feeling the superiority of his numbers, artillery, and professional decor of his soldiers under fire, he dismissed the constraints of the narrow roadway. A stubbornness that his army could out match and gun the unprofessional French Canadian Militia and native fighting barbaric Indians. 

One of George Washington’s Most Valuable Wartime Prizes,
A Pistol bequeathed by General Braddock after his death in 1755

*** ** *** ** ***

     The British Army was commanded to immediately set-up in a European-style formation shoulder to shoulder and begin firing in sequence on the enemy. General Braddock’s European style engagement tactics were completely inappropriate against “American Frontier Style” fighting employed by the French and Indians. The discipline and effectiveness of mass follies in unison was just inadequate against an enemy who took cover in the woods and fired individually. After a short time, the Indians completely surrounded the British soldiers in the roadway. The British troops were now caught in a constant cross-fire by Indians who were snipping the flanks from the cover of the woods; and the French regulars were keeping them distracted by advancing from the road in-front of them. The colonial militia who accompanied the British instinctively understood frontier style fighting and took cover in the woods firing individually, but stayed as a somewhat dis-unified group. This caused some confusion among the British soldiers who often mistaken them for the enemy and fired upon them.  


  General Braddock gifted George Washington this Leopard Skin Saddle Pad with his war horse just before he died

***   **   ***  **   ***

     General Braddock and his officers persistently kept trying to reform their units into regular show order within the confines of the narrow road, but they were simply providing open targets for the Indian snipers in the forest. Braddock tried using the cannons at one point, but the confines of the road made them difficult to use and the lack of a targeting location of a sizable group proved them ineffective. After several hours of intense combat, Braddock was still able to put-up an effective resistance; but unfortunately he was shot off his horse through the chest by musket shot and mortally wounded. George Washington and colonel Nicholas Meriwether bravely carried him out of harms way during the heated exchange. Soon afterward the British resistance collapsed, and by sunset the surviving British troops and colonial forces were fleeing back down the road that General Braddock painstakingly had them build. The French Canadians and Indians did not pursue the fleeing troops because they were engaged in looting and scalping of the fallen soldiers. 


 General Braddock’s Military Sprang Silk Sash Given to Aide-de-Camp George Washington for Heroics 

*** ** *** ** ***  

George Washington who at the time held no official rank in the chain of command was able to impost and maintain some order amount the British regulars and formed a protective rear guard.

George Washington who at the time held no official rank in the chain of command was able to impose and maintain some order among the British regulars and formed a protective rear guard. This allowed the remnants of the Army to safely disengage from the battle. On the retreat General Braddock died four days later from the fatal gunshot wound that he received in Battle. He was buried in the middle of the road he had his troops construct on the expedition to Fort Duquesne. Washington wrote in his personal journal that he officiated the funeral ceremony. The soldiers marched over the gravesite, followed by their wagons, so marauding Indians would not be able to dig General Braddock’s body up.

General Braddock’s death on July 13th 1755, officially marked the end of Braddock’s military expedition to capture Fort Duquesne, and gain strategic control of the Ohio valley. Just before he died, he gave George Washington his officer’s sprang silk sash, which is said to be the same one Washington and Col. Meriwether used to carry him out of harms way. General Braddock ceremoniously wore his red Sprang Officer’s Sash when ever he was present on the battlefield. He gifted this to Washington because he believed he acted courageously during the Battle, and was appreciative for his command presence and deportment of an officer during the retreat. Shortly after General Braddock was mortally wounded Washington took defect command and led the remainder of the Army back through the interior of Pennsylvania until they reached Colonel Dunbar’s position; who was in command of the rear supply and reserve units. He relinquished his de-facto command of remaining troops to Colonel Dunbar, and officially vacated his position as aide-de-camp for the campaign. On his return to public life his decisive leadership under fire earned him the sobriquet, “Hero of the Monongahela” throughout the colonies. When George Washington returned home to Virginia he was hailed as hero by the local citizens for some time to come, and asked to serve in the Virginia legislature.


George Washington rallying the broken forces at the Battle of Monongahela on July 9, 1755

*** ** *** ** ***

The Battle of Monongahela was a total disaster and defeat for the British Army. Of the approximately 1,300 men Braddock had led into battle, 456 were killed and 422 wounded. Commissioned officers were prime targets and suffered greatly: out of 86 officers, 26 were killed and 37 wounded. The French and Canadians reported 8 killed and 4 wounded; their Indian allies lost 15 killed and 12 wounded. George Washington at the time of the battle felt that the British regulars were inept in the military training. In his recollection of the battle he goes on to fault the British regulars and said, “Who were struck with such a panic that they behaved with more cowardice than it is possible to conceive. The officers behaved gallantly, in order to encourage their men.”

The end of Braddock’s expedition would just be the beginning of the bloody battles the British regulars would have to endure over the next several years. The British soldiers were often ambushed by hostile Indians while on march through forest path routes between territories. In some instances Redcoats were captured as prizes and then tortured in ritual war dance ceremonies by tribal braves or French sepoy members. The British regular’s tactical discipline was antiquated and officers were unwilling to conform to the frontier warfare tactics used by the native American Indians. George Washington realized this type of tactical warfare with with his experience at Fort Necessity and the Braddock Expedition. Understanding this was the British Army’s ache lies heel he would employ these American frontier fighting tactics himself against the British Army 20 years later during the American Revolution. 

The Actions Taken by Secretary of State William Pitt

Secretary of State William Pitt was determined to weaken France’s international position and made operations in North America his top priority. On January 23 1758, he commissioned James Wolfe as Brigadier General who would act as second in command to Major General Jeffery Amherst. The British Army’s first objective would be to capture the Fortress of Louisbourg (on Cape Breton Island) which would allow the Royal Navy to sail up the St. Lawrence River to attack Quebec. An expedition the previous year with a smaller navy had failed to seize the town because of a French Naval build-up. With a much larger navy and a force of 14,000 men, Major General Jeffery Amherst and Brigadier General Wolfe were able to besiege and capture of the Fortress of Louisbourg. Brigadier General Wolfe was able to distinguish himself as a brilliant tactician in the preparations for the assault, the initial landing, and in the aggressive advance of siege batteries. In the wake of this victory, Major General Jeffery Amherst was promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in the North American theatre. General Amherst was viewed at the time as a brilliant strategist who was credited for the success of the British Army’s campaigns to conquer the territories of New France in North America. Brigadier General James Wolfe was known for his training reforms and had comported himself admirably, and was an exceptional tactician who acted heroically at the siege of Louisbourg.

After Louisbourg, Secretary of State William Pitt chose him to lead the British assault on Quebec City the following year; while Amherst would lead a separate and larger force that would attack Canada from the south. At this point in his career General Wolfe was not only renowned in military circles for his heroics, but also famous to the citizens back home in Great Britain. The soldiers that served under him knew him to be demanding on himself and on them. He was also known for carrying the same combat equipment (a musket, cartridge box, and bayonet) into battle as his infantry men did. On September 13th 1759, the deciding moment in the conflict between Britain and France over the territorial fate of New France would become the pivotal battle in the Seven Years War (and influencing the later creation of Canada).


 General Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham leading his troops in September 1759

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

In late June of 1759, General Wolfe’s soldiers and parts of the Royal Navy landed on the opposite shore outside the walls of Quebec on a piece of land that was owned by a farmer named Abraham Martin. They started bombarding the city on July 12, reducing the city to rubble over the course of two months. The French Army and Canadian Militia was under the command of General Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm who lacked reinforcements and supplies from France. Because of a catastrophic harvest the year before  King Louis XV ordered a reduced defensive perimeter in the valley along the St. Lawrence River; and the evacuation of all forts in Ohio and those around Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain. This left General Montcalm with very little reinforcements when the British attacked. It was believed that he would employ new developed tactics that he used previously, which proved highly effective in European conflicts against insurmountable odds. For several weeks General Montcalm was fortunate on many occasions to repel attempted landings by British forces. After spending a little more than a month of August ravaging through the countryside looking for strategic entry points, General Wolfe was forced to re-strategize a new plan of attack by doing what was thought impossible.

General Wolfe came-up with a strategy to do an amphibious landing in a small cove about a mile and half above Quebec City. His soldiers would miraculously scale a 200 meter cliff from the river below, and set up a defensible position with cannons catching the French Army off-guard. On September 13th 1759, Wolfe led 4,400 soldiers in small boats and carried just two small canons with them. This tactic completely surprised the Montcalm who thought the cliff would be unclimbable. Before Montcalm could react, Wolfe’s forces had already reached the plains outside the city and into formation ready for battle. Faced with the possibility of the British fortifying their new position with additional cannons, Montcalm extemporaneously decided to attack the advancing British in fear if he waited he would not be able to defeat them. Instead of waiting for the forces garrisoned along the shore to come-up and bolster his numbers General Montcalm called for an attack on the Plains of Abraham.The battle involved less then 10,000 soldiers between both sides, and only lasted an hour including tactical deployment of British soldiers. The French end-up being defeated after fifteen minutes, but managed too repel the British at the gates of Quebec. The British only won a partial victory that day, failing to capture the city and to disable the French army.



 Benjamin West, The Death of James Wolfe


Both top military commanders died from gunshot wounds inflicted during the battle. While riding back to the city General Montcalm was hit in the back by a musket shot that was lodged just below his ribs. He was assisted back into the city by three of his soldiers, and taken before a surgeon who said he would not live long. As his last official act as Commander of the French Army in Canada, he addressed a letter to General Wolfe, who unbeknownst to him had also fallen in battle also, attempted to surrender of the city. Within the first few minutes of the engagement, General Wolfe received three gunshot wounds. One to the arm, shoulder, and chest which ended. Wolfe’s strategy and actions in the taking of Quebec earned him lasting fame throughout Great Britain and the American Colonies. He became a paragon of British virtue and an icon of Britain’s victory in the Seven Years War. He was posthumously dubbed, “The Hero of Quebec” and the “Conqueror of Canada” in Great Britain.      

By the end of the Seven Years War, the British Army would be triumphant in its military campaigns in the both the North American and European theaters. The British Empire would emerge as the world’s leading colonial power. With the newly signed Treaty of Paris in 1763, France would give-up all its territories in North America, which would effectively end any foreign military threat to the British colonies. The British Empire would gain these new territories for the expansion of the British Empire, and go on to establish itself as the world’s pre-eminent naval power. 


In the wake of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham the French ended-up evacuating the city. By 1761, most of the shooting had ceased, and the British was in control over virtually all of territory that was once owned by France. This was seven bloody years which was at great sacrifice to the citizens at home in Great Britain. By the war’s end the British citizens had the right of ownership of all of the Americas. They felt they have suffered enough with a bankrupt economy and have paid the price with their family and loved ones blood. It was socially thought that they didn’t feel it was proper that the American colonists who enjoying considerable prosperity under the Crown was not paying their fair share of the war debt incurred.

This Seven Years’ War had another side of the equation which is given very little attention by Revolutionary War historians. It was the change in society’s social contracts between the European nation states and their citizens. The needless cost of human life for political advantage or territory accumulation by a small number of Lords and Nobles who defined the aristocratic class. Their rally-cries for war will hide under an allusion of duty and honor, and patriotism with courage to ones country. This would be the new guidelines of British citizenry in the onset of the Seven Years War.

*    Along with this new war came an unintended social demoralization consequence to society as a whole. There was an official break from the socially accepted philosophy social contracts which had been put forth put forth by the philosopher John Locke in 1689, and the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. With the world at war both soldiers and citizens would act and do things out of civilized character, and revert back socially to living in a “State of Nature.” These once held philosopher social contracts between neighbors and government were hastily trampled on by the hurriedly scribbled marching orders of the King II & III and Great Britain’s Parliament. This aspect of social contract change between the people and their government will be my primary focus as i illustrate the series of political and military events that led up to the European colonist rebellion in America prior to the Revolution. This wasn’t just a conflict between the British and the French, but a worldly social revolution that would sweep both North America and European continent. Englishmen will turn against the Crown through Jacobite sympathetic social clubs, and in America the European colonists will turn on their neighbors. Patriots for the Cause will fight American Crown Loyalists for liberty, independence, and inalienable rights of God over the European Devine Rights of Kings. As President Abraham Lincoln will say a hundred years in the future from the end of the Seven Years War, “There is no good in war accept its ending.”


1757-1782 58th Regt. of Foot RutlandShire 

Color: Greenish Brown with Gilt Highlights.
Metal: Flat, Impressed Design, Gilt Copper.
Button Size: 17mm. Cuff Size.
Present Condition: An Excavated Specimen, Exceptional Planchet Condition, An Exceptional Impression Remains.
Robert’s Comments: This regiment was originally organized by Colonel Robert Anstruther as the 60th Regt. of Foot in 1755 for service in the 7 year war. It was reorganized as the 58th Regt. of Foot following the disbandment of the existing 50th and 51st regt.’s. The regiment went to North America in the spring of 1758 for the French Indian War campaign and saw action at the siege of Louisbourg in June of 1758, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in Sept of 1759, and the Battle of Sainte-Foy in April of 1760. Afterward, the regiment disembarked for the West Indies. En route to the West Indies 8 companies of the regiment were captured by the French. the remainder took part in the Battle of Havana in the summer of 1762 during the anglo Spanish War. In 1770, the regiment returned to England and was posted to Gibraltar and saw action in the Great Siege in the early 1780’s. This regiment never took part or saw any service in the American Revolution. 

The Robert J. Silverstein Collection.


Benjamin Franklin & America’s Landed Gentry


Benjamin Franklin

1754 Benjamin Franklin Re-purposed Propaganda
Originating Prior to 1696 France.

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***



The Revolutionary Matrix 1750’s-1760’s:

The snake would be the 1st symbol of unification for the British Colonies in America.(1) With the outbreak of the French Indian War, Franklin recognized the disadvantage of the colonies pursuing their own separate military strategies, and tried to give a rational argument for the cohesive unification of the different colonies governments and assemblies. The fragmentation of political opinions and commitments in the face of a unified enemy led Franklin on a path of social propaganda by calling for an effectual measure for “The Common Defense and Security.” This wasn’t a creation of Franklins, but the bridge from an undercurrent movement over the years to the public eye of the common citizen to unite and take action toward. Ever since the 17th century, the British politicians and their official representatives realized that keeping the colonies divided kept them complacent and weak; if they were united their solidarity would lead to eventual independence. By using class stratification it allowed for the British officials to set a climate of socially accepted rules of proper society. This gave way to consequential terms like, “Treasonous” for rebellious attitudes against established British political and social policies.

The 8 Segmented Snake should be viewed as the 1st of many re-purposed propaganda moves which Benjamin Franklin would undertake to transform the undercurrent movement by the landed gentry for social inequality and unification. Even though the snake cartoon was not re-printed in standard English newspapers or magazines, it appears to have been well circulated throughout the British colonies in New York and Boston newspapers.(2) This re-purposed cut-snake cartoon was a propaganda chess-piece move by Franklin to gain public support as a public rally cry for action. This would in-turn give him a desired public square momentum of debate prior to his trip on June 8th 1754 to the City of New York where he would give the gentry political class his “Albany Plan for American Unification.”  As with all propaganda moves there are many other variables which contribute to it success. Such as, the Virginia Gazette later reporting Colonel George Washingtons defeat at Fort Necessity two months after the political cartoon on July 19th 1754.


These British officials were considered colony overlords with considerable discretion in political, economic and social matters within their jurisdiction. Natural resources and productivity of arboriculture and agriculture goods within any of the colonies were seen as protected rights under British Sovereignty Laws, and the British-American colonists who toiled were expected to comply with jurisdictional laws unquestioningly. British class stratification along with colony officials deportment played crucial roles in keeping the natural born colonists in compliance, but also fueled a resentment which directly contributed to various flash-points of dissatisfaction and unrest which increasingly contributed to a grass-roots underground movements for social change. Benjamin Franklin being a master propagandist of his time was able to rudimentary speak to all classes of citizens by speaking to multi-cultural nationalities. Meaning, he probably chose the Snake symbol for several reasons. For Judaeo-Christians the Snake instantly recalls the meaning and morality lessons behind the devil in the Garden of Eden. This religious propaganda was already established within western culture and was frequently found as colonial primers for textbooks, children’s books, fireplace tiles, and even on iron plates for Pennsylvania German stoves.(3) By re-purposing the snake symbol, Franklin believed he could embody and maneuver the Christianity symbol of evil, and then re-facet it in a multi-direction toward English imperialist practices of governorship. What he did was re-purpose the snake symbol of eternity and unity and graft into the American culture. Three years prior he actually introduced the Rattlesnake as a precedent template to example human nature in his 1751 savage satire, “Rattlesnakes for Felons.” By cataloging crimes by exiled English criminals it helped lay the foundational framework for mobilizing public support and creating colonial unity for the better interest of the colonists. So, by 1754, it conjured-up the beginning roots of American patriotism while re-calling and promoting anti-English sentiments.

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

The Undercurrent Propaganda Behind The 8 Segmented Snake


The Break-up of the House of Hanover’s Power

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

So, to understand the underlying basis for a successful political change Franklin understood he needed to address the roots of British aristocracy. He came up with the idea using an appealing multi-culture religious “Allusion” which carried an undercurrent connotation of the symbolic representation of chopping-up or dividing King George III and his Sir Knights Order of the Garter’s power over the British colonies in New England and America. The Order’s eight pointed star symbol being representational of King George III and his 12 Sir Knights of the Order of the Garter. By using the colloquial cover of the segmented snake he is affording his rebellious Gentry class of friends and common citizens “Operational Security” for the true intent and meaning of what must be done for a successful revolution. We believe there might be some merit that the New England States counted as, “5 combined” instead of “1” to make the 8 segments of the snake. This could be true if one considers the representation of the 1689 Boston Revolt which would have stripped away Charles I’s Charters to the colonies and redrawing the lines as, “The Domain of New England” by Sir Edmund Andros. It is our belief that the crux of the snake symbol had to do with disenfranchising British Loyalists in powerful colony positions using sovereign authority. Franklin knew and spoke under a form of Operational Security to like minded rebellious influential landed gentry class who were secretly sympathetic to the Jacobite Cause. This should be historically viewed as the 1st of many “Patriot Allusions of War.”  Other propaganda variables would be re-purposed from their original historical English origins such as, Charles II Oak Tree original symbolic meaning would then be metamorphosed into the contemporary use of the colonists “Liberty Tree.” With the overlapping multi-context meaning and symbolic nature to the disgruntled citizenry it would have afforded another re-purposed propaganda avenue to gain support for the New Patriot Cause.


The Prequel of Taxation 

The division between the European colonists in the American with the British government begins with the end of the French & Indian War in 1763. Great Britain was victorious in their Seven Years War, but it left their economy financially exhausted by the Global conflict. The British Exchequer was broke, and over-leveraged a £140 million debt from war time expenditures. The British citizens at home were heavily taxed just to pay the interest from the loan created by the Seven Years’ War. This forced the British Parliament generate a new tax stream outside of Great Britain’s citizenry. They looked at all areas of the Empire, but began focusing solely on the British colonies in America. There was a new ostentatious arrogance by Parliament members in support for these new taxes. They had the arrogant nature that colonists were European freeloaders who have been fortunate enough in the past not to pay their fair share, and had to be brought to heal.

This post-war British attitude and economic change of policy did not go unnoticed by the American colonists who read colonial newspapers of the latest political news. American newspaper began printing articles which would heighten the colonists emotions. Anti-tax pamphlets and broadsides would soon flood the city streets by couriers to all 13 colonies Agitators and rabble-rousers who felt no allegiance to the Crown would begin to vocalize their frustrations in taverns, churches, and public squares. All expounding what they called, “Treasonous ideas” of the Crown and made their neighbors feel like unjustifiable targets. As the months turned into years attitudes changed and with class stratification of natural born British citizenship it just fuels the fire. 

Originally, the Crown governors, magistrates, and tax collectors understood the financial debt situation of the Empire, and verbally advocated to the colonists that they should feel lucky. They explained that there was vast unequal parity of taxation between the American colonists and Great Britain’s citizens. They argued that the British colonies in North America had enjoyed considerable prosperity with guaranteed markets for their crops, and protection from the French, Spanish, and dutch piracy at sea. They reaped the benefits of British protection from the native American Indians as well as benefited from British rule of law. Colonists put forth counter-arguments that the balance of trade had been more one-sided and favorable to England. British merchant investors were exploiting colonial subjects and not fairly sharing in the profits. Also, there was a vast economic differential, more products were imported from Great Britain than exported back there. The cries of taxation did not fall on all death ears, there were a number of sympathetic magistrates and tax collectors who sided with the colonists, and penned cautionary notes home to England detailing their concerns for the introduction of these new taxes.

The Sugar Act of 1764

In 1764, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Grenville pushed through Parliament the “American Revenue Tax.” In the American colonies it was simply called. The Sugar Act.” This was a modified version of the Sugar and Molasses Act of 1733, which was about to expire. Under the original Molasses Act, colonial merchants were required to pay a six pence per gallon tax on imported molasses. The new American Revenue Tax would reduce the tax on foreign molasses that was imported into the colonies, but on the other hand it raised taxes on refined sugar, coffee, Spanish wine, and all non-British textiles. The purpose of lowering the tax on molasses was to encourage and persuade colonial importers to buy molasses from British colonies instead of smuggling it in from French and Spanish colonies. The new law also addressed the smuggling problem which was a problem throughout the colonies. On the other side of the coin, the Sugar Act was only half the tax of molasses. By raising the import duties on refined sugar it gave British sugar growers in the West Indies a monopoly on the colonial market.


Southern agricultural planters


who’s tobacco crops furnished the Crown with a constant revenue stream soon joined in after hearing the Parliament’s decision to introduce a   new Stamp Act Tax.

The North American colonies would soon become the British economy’s lifeline to pay for their incurred war debts. The colonies were quickly becoming a rich market for British exports, and looked at by Parliamentary legislatures as an untapped source for new taxes and export duties. To the common British citizen there was a sense of atonement that was owed for their protection against the French and Indians. The felt that British citizens felt that they paid the highest price in the French Indian War with the blood of British soldiers. The government felt that this was a costly endeavor to secure victory over the French and secure the new territories for the British Empire. A new Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763, which resulted in a new Pax Britannica Map of North America. Along with this new map came a justifiable fear of certain Indian Tribes that proved to be hostile toward western expansion of the colonies by the white Anglo-Saxon European settlers. So, King George III forbade his subjects from exploring or trading beyond the Appalachian Mountains. This decree wasn’t taken kindly by certain Indian tribes who enjoyed the prosperity brought by trading with the white European settlers. Chief Pontiac who was head of the Indian “Council of Three Tribes” started attacking frontier settlements and destroying British forts. In answer to this savagery, the British Parliament sent 10,000 troops to Boston to establish garrisons for the protection of the colonies; and enforce the success and safeguard of all future commercial enterprise revenue endeavors.


The problem was there was a continuing cost to the British citizenry at home for maintaining a standing army to protect the colonists from the native American Indians

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   *** 

The American Colonist Perspective

The Rebellion Begins With The Loyal Nine & The Sons of Liberty

<     There are many variables that come into play for the first time in history in both the British Colonies in America and in Great Britain during 1765. A test of men’s wills and integrity will reach an idiosyncratic flash point and cause a  breakdown for people to act out of character in-order to wield the power of social and political persuasion. Maybe historians should consider the flash point of men’s character in 1765, more important than the shots herd around the world from the first Battles of Lexington & Concord in April of 1775.

The Loyal Nine

The “Loyal Nine” of Boston was a semi-well organized political organization who formed sometime in April of 1765. The group took a public Patriot platform of revolt to protest The Stamp Act which passed in Parliament on March 22, 1765.  Since the colonies were ruled under Royal governorship backed by British troops the group operated secrecy by holding meetings informally. The goal of the group was to operate outside of official political channels becuase they felt that American politicians in the British Colonies could not wield the influence needed to repeal the Stamp Act; nor, could they rely on the members of the American whig party in British Parliament to properly or fairly represent the European colonists political and economic rights. This produced a break in an unwritten social contract between the Americans living in the British Colonies and the Parliament of Great Britain. To circumvent normal political channels the Loyal Nine resorted to methods that were outside of reasonable human character.


Image from the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

They approached their anti-Stamp Act campaign by using a series of strategies to gain public support and then use the increasing supporter numbers as a strengthening bargaining chip to force politicians to repeal the Stamp Act before it took effect on November 1, 1765. Their first prong of their campaign was to circulate anti-Stamp Act pamphlets throughout the city of Boston. This included putting signage all over the streets and hanging effigies of public officials who were supporters of the Stamp Act. The second prong of their campaign was to constructively use the build-up of anti-parliament sentiment of the common citizens to their advantage. They were known to organize and incite their supporters into a new founded patriotism, which often ended in street violence of public officials who supported the Stamp Act. These were not roving citizens on a witch hunt roving through the streets of the City of Boston. These were carefully planned, organized, and directed attacks by the Loyal Nine. They were extremely careful in their actions. First, they would meet-up informally in secret and then create a strategic plan of action. Then at a pre-designated event time call for a public rally to initiate new anti-Stamp Act supporters. These rallies usually took place at a large Elm Tree in Boston’s Hanover Square which they dubbed, “The Liberty Tree.” This became their central meeting place speeches and a staging area for organized protests, demonstrations, and street violence.


The Late 1760’s or 1770’s Liberty Tree Button 

Boston’s Hanover Square Liberty Tree Button

Color: Burgundy with Silvery Highlights.
Metal: Flat, 1-Piece, Impressed Design, Gilt Brass.
Size: 25mm.
Present Condition: A Non Excavated Specimen, Mold Casting, A Strong Impression Remains.
Robert’s Notes: The button’s pattern depicts a Large Elm Tree in the center with the word “LIBERTY” above. Circling around the outside legend is a Elm Leaf pattern. The button’s pattern design in impressed on a plain flat field. The symbolic nature of the button was used as a rebellious propaganda symbol for unifying citizens to force a repeal of the Stamp Act before it went into effect on November 1, 1765.
Reverse Condition: This is a one-piece button with a soldered on loop shank. The shank is original and intact.

The R.J. Silverstein Collection.

In August of 1765, the paths of the Loyal Nine and the Sons of Liberty crossed and ultimately merged. The men of the Loyal Nine joined the Sons of Liberty and became an arguably integral part of that organizations internal workings. Although not a member of the Loyal Nine, Samuel Adams, who by the summer of 1765 was emerging on the scene as an important political-official Patriot leader and organizer, met and worked with the group and probably had some influence or was influenced it. It is no coincidence Samuel Adams is often credited as being the founder and leader of the Sons of Liberty, and that the Loyal Nine merged into this group.

The original membership of the Loyal Nine consisted of a club secretary John Avery who was a distiller by trade, Thomas chase who was another distiller, George Trott who was a jeweler, John Smith who was a brazier, Joseph Field was a ships captain, Thomas Crafts was a painter, Benjamin Edes was a printer of the Boston Gazette, and Henry Bass was Samuel Adams cousin who would prove to be the link into the Sons of Liberty.


The Founding of The Sons of Liberty

Samuel Adams was born in Boston Massachusetts on September 27, 1722. He was one of twelve children who was raised in a religious and politically active family. In his adolescence he attended Boston Latin School and then went on to Harvard College in 1736. From his upbringing and early adulthood Adams always had an interest in politics. After graduating from Harvard in 1740, and after earning his master’s degree in 1743, he dabbled at being a tax collector and then a businessman before turning and devoting all of his attention toward politics. In the 1760’s he quickly became an influential state official for the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and often acted as a respected advisor for the legislative body in Boston Town meetings. His political position could reasonable be the catalyst for him to become part of a movement that was opposed too the British Parliament’s efforts to tax the American colonies without their consent.

Samuel Adams was not a member of the Loyal Nine, but it is commonly believed that he did meet with members of the Nine on several occasions. One could only speculate what his motives and interest were, but reasonably we can say he was an informal guest of his cousin Henry Bass, and the Nine wanted something from him through his political affiliations, or his influence. No one can know for certain why Samuel Adams didn’t join their group, but with his political stature one could reasonable say he didn’t agree with their methods of political activeness. History tells us he was brought-up very religious, the Loyal Nine come from European oppressive cultures dominated by the union of Kings and religion.

By 1765, The colonists in north America were fed-up with the whole notion of the Devine Rights of Royals, and wanted America to be a place of equality. Where an individual’s personal relationship was with God himself and not through the King or church practitioners. This was the key societal change and the guiding principle idea of the  “New World Order” that came to mind by European immigrants coming to the shores of America from their old world countries. They were no longer willing to be participants of class stratification and submit to the inequality of British birth-right-citizenship decrees through Parliamentary laws. They were at the end of their rope with patience and unequal political avenues of re-course. Meaning, this was not the America they fled to in-order to have the “Pursuit of Happiness.” Driven by anger and hatred the Loyal Nine would do what ever was necessary; including being raunch activists who would organize and incite riots by using street mob mentality. There would have been no appeal for Samuel Adams who was brought-up with a firm belief in religion, cultured, and educated to know the proper balance of right and wrong. He was a man of stature and deportment who was aware of the citizenry of Boston’s perception and reliance through his official political position. Understanding his political avenue through the Massachusetts House of Representatives for legal petition was limited (a dead-end avenue) and his distaste for the felonious ways of the Loyal Nine he needed a third option that wasn’t available that he would have to create. A balance between the established political avenue of society and the Loyal Nine’s rebel activities.

Samuel Adam’s most likely founded the Sons of Liberty with the help and support of John Hancock. The Sons of Liberty’s name comes from a speech made in the British Parliament by an Irishman named Isaac Barre. Barre was a prominent Member of Parliament who was known for originally “coining the term,” “Sons of Liberty.” Barr constantly used it in reference to the American Whigs who opposed British government policies. He was also a strong vocal supporter of William Pitt who was praised and received glory during his first Ministry when he laid the basis for England’s victory in the Seven Year war. William Pitt was absent from Parliament when the Stamp Act was passed on March 27th 1765, but he knew that he could take measures to repeal the law before it took effect on November 1st 1765. William Pitt was a firm believer of Parliament’s right to legislate for the colonies, but he did not believe Parliament’s  right extended to taxation. When the Stamp Act’s enforcement or repeal was before the House of Commons, William Pitt was unfortunately bed ridden, but in a note to a friend he expresses his determination in his support of the Americans, “If i can crawl or be carried, I will deliver my mind and heart upon the state of America.” His determination and speech would prove persuasive to the members of the House of Commons. The Marquess of Rockingham wrote to King George III the day after Pitt’s speech, “The events of yesterday in the House of Commons have shown the amazing power and influence Mr. Pitt has whenever he takes part in the debate. The speech added new intensity to the admiration Americans already had for its author.” The letter provides a window into the relationship and the hopes of the American Whig party in representing the interests to the House of Commons. It did not take long before Williams Pitt’s speech’s declaration of his position circulated throughout English newspapers and home in the American colonies. William Pitts stature even grew more in the upcoming months as ships, towns, and babies were named after him. He became the epitome of British Liberty, but not just to the Americans, but Englishmen also living in the bounds of the Empire. Maybe the American Cause though the Stamp Act allowed him to act in the interests of his countryman’s future well being. One British rhymester penned, “I thank thee, Pitt, for all thy glorious strife against the foes of LIBERTY and life.” 

Parliaments Political Bridge into the British Colonies in America

   America’s First Button of Rebellion: The William Pitt No Stamp Act button of 1765/6 was a propaganda (tool)vehicle used to rally support for the American Whig Party with the British sympathizers living in England. The button served as a reflection of Brit’s support in the House of Lords; which was the avenue of hope American politicians sought. We don’t know if Pitt himself was seen as a rallying symbol for Americans (Possibly with the Sons of Liberty) but there are buttons that were found here in the states. They would have been brought to the colonies for a reason. The William Pitt button represents an organized propaganda measure which was needed in-order to rally the support in London needed for the repeal of the Stamp Act before it went into effect on November 1, 1765.


1765/6 William Pitt No Stamp Act * The 1st British Colony “Rebellion” button

Color: A Nicely Aged Chocolate Brown.
Metal: Flat, 1-Piece, Raised Design, Copper.
Size: 20mm. Vest Size.
Rarity: R-6
Variety Type: William Pitt Portrait / No Stamp Act / Early Rebellion Sons of Liberty button.
Present Condition: A Dug Specimen, A Strong Planchet Condition, An Excellent Raised Design Remains.
Obverse Button Analysis: This specimen is as close as you can get to mint state or museum quality. This would be the British Colonies (America’s) 1st button made in Rebellion to Parliaments newly introduced Stamp Act. 

This was Dug in a Cellar hole in New Hampshire by Daniel H. in December 2018
The Daniel H. Collection.


* The Parliament of Great Britain’s Decree *

 The Stamp Act Pamphlet, Published in London in 1765

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

British Verse American Thoughts on The Stamp Act of 1765

For the average citizen The Stamp Act created a problem because the tax had to be paid in hard to obtain British sterling, and not in colonial paper money which was used by most of the colonists. Furthermore, any colonist accused of violating the Stamp Act could be legally prosecuted in Vice Admiralty Courts. This was like a roving judiciary arm of the law which had no jury by peers and could be held anywhere in the British Empire. The Stamp act of 1765 was viewed by the Gentry as an assault on plantation owners like George Washington and the Scottish Gentry who controlled most of the arboricultural exports. John Adams spent one evening with the Sons of Liberty at their own apartment in Boston’s Hanover Square near the Tree of Liberty and wrote, “Over punch and wine, biscuits and cheese, and tobacco, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty discussed their opposition to Britain’s hated Stamp act, which required that Americans pay a tax on nearly every document they created. Mortgages, deeds, contracts, court papers, and shipping papers, newspapers and pamphlets – all had to be printed on paper with tax stamps.” 

     The Parliament of Great Britain that proposed the Stamp Tax and corresponding penalty laws was merely trying to appease a constituent base of elected officials who fervently outcried about having to pay for over 10,000 officers and soldiers living in the colonies. The monies collected would also help pay for the British Troops who were previously stationed in the American colonies during the Seven Year War. Their argument was that the European Colonists living in the British colonies in America should help contribute to their own common defense not only during the Seven Years War, but also against the Native American Indians who were a continuing persistent problem. So, the Parliament of Great Britain under domestic political pressure introduced the Stamp Act of 1765, and viewed it as a rightful shift of burden which did not specifically target any specific British import or export products. The Crown and Parliament considered the European colonists living in America under their legal purview of law, and well within the British Empire’s domain; despite the class stratification of British citizenship that existed. To the European colonists living in America the Stamp Act was introduced abrasively and without and without legal colonist representation. In the American Colonies the public outcry became commonly known as, “Taxation without Representation.”


America’s Freemasonry

What I Am At Liberty to Say

     Originally, freemasonry was established by Kings in-order to control extended royal families and established Gentry. This allowed the King to rule as a Monarch and control the social and political environment through royals and elites. As with all fraternities evolving over time it adapts to progressive ideas and the changes with society’s social norms. In the 1760’s & 1770’s in England and Scotland there was an underground grass roots movement against the King of England, which blossomed in underground fraternities until their Jacobite based ideas were entrenched in open society.

     In the 1770’s America, the newly landed disgruntled gentry would take-up a new mindset arms for the 1st time, and act as the front line in the new progressive change through their Masonic Lodges. The new mindset would question the Devine Right of Kings, and break the bounds of the class stratification of established gentry and newly landed gentry. Masonic Lodges in America developed an open enrollment of all men of good standing; Not just Royals or other Nobility. The men of these lodges striped away the the King’s perceived lineage to God, and shifted it upon the common man. For the first time each individual in society would be self governing and take responsibility for their own actions and destinies. All of world history either religion or a Monarch ruled society. Freemasonry was a combine measure to create a better enlightened society as a whole. Hence, they created in effect “A New World Order,” as well as provided a Constitutional framework for our society to move forward under new social contracts.

A Creed of Sorts

     Freemasonry is based on a belief that each man has a responsibility to help make the world better place. It’s the confidence of having millions of trustworthy brothers who have taken a sacred oath that they have your back. It’s a profound new sense of purpose and community. It’s a path of self discovery and shared beliefs that good men are better sons, husbands, and fathers. It is walking upright and proud in the same tradition as the Giants that came before us. In short it is a way of life that we must embrace. I am a Proud member of Hudson River 309, and it is something i will cherish my whole life and make my time upon this earth memorable. I am humble and thank God as well as my lodge Master for their guidance and my brothers for their fellowship. -RJ. Silverstein

Squashing Conspiracy Theorists

     As with any new ideas that are not embraced by society wanting to change from established norms a secrecy surrounds these men’s new enlightened ideas. Did these ideas originate in Scotland University or England’s Social Clubs? Possibly, but we do know for sure it was the American Revolution that would bring it to the forefront on the world’s stage.      

     As with new movements there are good actors and bad actors. Good ideas and bad ideas. What brings change is the overall benefit by many over the benefit of the few. So, let me leave you with this. There is nothing secret about Freemasonry except it lodge ritual practices by participating brothers. There is no secret agenda. A Masonic Lodge was built in almost every American town, and is open for membership to all good standing citizens who believe in the creed i quickly penned above.


18th Century Masonic Design depicting the integration
of Christians and Catholics in America 


The New World Order 

     There was a grass roots movement among the newly landed gentry in America that would flourish into a bridge between the established aristocracy of old wealth, and university elites. This bridge would take form under a new founded Patriotism / Nationalism of the American Revolutionary movement. These were men of America’s rising class were tired of being on the short end of established social contracts between the age old established governments led by religious leaders, monarchies and their nobles. The Enlightenment movement offering new ideals originated in Scotland’s Universities and then branched out into Scottish and England’s aristocracy. Soon other European neighboring countries saw the benefits of Ideals of individual relationships with God, and unfettered independence of Prosperity away from established government constructs. These progressive revolutionaries with their new enlightened Ideals of social contract change would ultimately culminate in America’s Social clubs in the 1760’s & 1770’s culminating into a Revolution. These Revolutionaries part of the Sons of Liberty Organizations were looking to change into a new social construct calling for a “New World Order,” which was a societal move away from Devine Rights of Kings to Individual Responsibility for ones own actions and relationships with God.


The American Sons of Liberty
1760’s & 1770’s.



To connect the dots from the American Revolution: The very beginning of the “American Experiment” is that you have the right to complain and your allowed to voice your position amongst society’s others, as well as the established governing forces. On December 16, 1773 America’s society exercised their right by dumping the tea in the Boston Harbor. When we established the Constitution in 1789, the framers thought it wise the next go around in the future the common citizens were protected by the 2nd Amendment. We often look at the positive results of the “American Experiment” by benefiting from a capitalist society; and ones freedom and unbound limitations in the pursuit of happiness (within customary societal bounds, and free of elite government enforcement laws or Monarchial proclamations). 

The Sons of Liberty 

The Sons of Liberty was the grass roots catalyst organization for people to organize under an umbrella of resistance and show their dissatisfaction by public demonstrations (which started in the colony of Virginia). They introduced propaganda mechanisms like the Liberty Tree, Liberty Cap & Pole, and Rattlesnake devices through the colonies like wildfire. There message propaganda vehicles were quickly popularized and accepted symbols by the American colonists. The organization was increasing it’s membership on a daily basis in every colony so fast that independent charter Sons of Liberty organizations sprung up quickly in several colonies. To keep the Sons of Liberty organization structured they introduced a formal oversight committee in the City of New York with the express intention of providing oversight and direction to newly founded branches. This was done within three months of Samuel Adams founding the Sons of Liberty in Boston. By the time New York and Connecticut joined the umbrella in December there was a formal alliance between the different all splinter SOL organizations to act under directed unison. By January of 1766, the following year SOL organizations had branched out into New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia, and even Newport, Rhode Island. Their motto became, “No Taxation without Representation.”


The Sons of Liberty Nine Delegates Coat of Arms / Flag Representation
It is customary to have some device or Coat of Arms to Represent your movement


     Rumors of a new forming Congress which would be unofficially elected from the gentry class members of the Sons of Liberty organization was circulating. Their agenda would be to formally petition against the Stamp Act and penal laws decreed by the Parliament of Great Britain. The formation of delegates was done in a surreptitious nature because the Royal Colony governors and colony Crown Loyalist took actions to prevent any kind of colony rebels from organizing and meeting. Royal governors enacted treasonous lawful measures against Sons of Liberty members, and this constantly loomed against their organizations activities. Royal governors in often cases used soldier backed efforts to thwart resistance and rebellion SOL members. This intimidation was usually only successful in Loyalist stronghold city areas which left countryside towns the maneuverability to assemble and protest. Certain cities like Boston and the City of New York had overwhelming crowds in widespread protests which produced direct push back on British soldiers and usually erupted into violence toward them.

     The Sons of Liberty sanctioned a delegation of nine members who formed a legislative committee of sorts and was known as, “The Stamp Act Congress. They would go on and meet in a building known as, “Federal Hall.” A “Declaration and Rights and Grievances” was shortly drafted in October of 1765, and signed by six of the nine delegates. This petition stated that Parliament did not have the legal right to impose any new directed tax or laws such as, “The Stamp Act” that did not include any representation from the American colonies. The petition was sent to the Parliament of Great Britain and King George III. They viewed the Stamp Act Congress’s petition as seditious act against the Crown. A counter-measure of resistance by rebel factions within the colonies who were supported by a growing gentry class who’s lineage unqualified them for formal British citizenship which carried a voice. In America the declaration was seen by Crown Loyalists of rebel countryman going against the British’s established time honored legal authority. Meaning, on both sides of the Atlantic the unfair class stratification of citizenship caused a dismissive response and came down to the strength of will of both factions. 

     With a limited diplomatic voice this left the patriots of the Sons of Liberty organizations into a position to take countermeasures outside of the normal official diplomatic channels. They decided to take the Stamp Tax head on by placing an unofficial boycott of British imported products throughout the colonies. After a short time this produced a widespread negative public opinion toward any kind of British imported products. Their end game was to force economic hardships on British merchants who would be forced to act in a political nature in Great Britain. This was a way for the Sons of Liberty movement circumvent their limited diplomatic political voice. After several months of expensive boycotts the inter-colony unifying force organized and propagandized by the Sons of Liberty prevailed against the British merchants who ended-up suffering economic consequence of these new laws and tax. The wealthy British merchants who had an unofficial political voice put pressure on Parliament members which caused the repeal the Stamp Act. As a safeguard measure the Parliament passed a coinciding “Declaratory Act” or “American Colonies Act of 1766” which clearly stated that Parliament can make binding laws on the American Colonies “in all cases whatsoever” to preserve their future legal rights. This new Declaratory Act i suppose could be seen as saving face and preserving Parliamentary power. The Sons of Liberty officially disbanded after the repeal of the Stamp Act feeling their first taste of Rebellion. 


The Revolution Begins

     After the disbandment of the Sons of Liberty the rebellious members went on to join more formal groups such as, “The Committee of Safety, Committee of Inspection, and the Committee of Correspondence.”  These committees were organized throughout the 13 colonies, and we’re made up of individuals who considered themselves “The First Patriots.” They more or less acted as watchdogs and created a shadow government of sorts. Their main objective was to undermine British authority whenever they viewed an injustice because of class stratification or breaks in social contracts. Their main coordinated effort resulted in wrestling away control from Royal officials. They did this in a seditious manor by constantly keeping the communities informed of the dangers and consequences of the actions taken by Royal officials. This was usually done by word of mouth, tavern get togethers, Masonic lodge meetings, and in limited fashion when warranted public broadsides. Often times to catch the spirit of the community violation anonymous summonses to secret meeting locations were called for and resulted in a “mob mentality” show of force. The meeting locations were often covert, and certain locations such as the “Liberty Tree” were twisted into a form of symbolic propaganda reinforcement. Public reminders were often used such as staking a “Liberty Pole” in the ground where these watchdog committees felt that a social contract of rights was violated. The introduction of the “Liberty Tree” or “Liberty Pole” added a new dynamic of American cultural propaganda into the Sons of Liberty Patriot Cause. The cornerstones which turned into building blocks and then led into a feverish flashpoint which caused the American Revolution to be triggered with shots being fired at Lexington Common. A last note, the notable gentry-class figures usually kept their locations secret as to not suffer from any Royal authority action toward their economic stakes. 


The Sons of Liberty Adopts the 13 Stripe Rebellious Flag to Symbolize State Unity


     In 1767, the Sons of Liberty organization officially adopted a nine stripe flag as their de facto Coat of Arms. This was called, “The Rebellious Stripe Flag.” The flag consisted of four white and five red alternating vertical stripes. As other Sons of Liberty organizations were forming outside of New York and Massachusetts other color combination stripe flags were introduced to a lessor degree by founding SOL branch members as a way of unifying certain ethnicity disparaged citizens. These Sons of Liberty Flags sported green and white, or yellow and white color stripes which appealed to certain groups of people for various messaging (reasons).

     By 1775, the Second Continental Congress, the Sons of Liberty, and off-shoot watchdog Committees of the Sons of Liberty organization needed to have a single unifying Coat of Arms which appealed to everyone in the resistance regardless of the colony their from. This led to the introduction of the thirteen red and white stripe flag. This new Coat of Arms would be a transformation from the original Sons of Liberty nine stripe delegate flag into an all inclusive umbrella which represented all the citizens of all 13 colonies. In 1775, both General George Washington who was the Commander and Chief of the Continental Army and Commodore Esek Hopkins who was the Commander and Chief of the Continental Navy flew the thirteen red and white stripe flag in their earliest engagements in the American Revolution. This transfiguration of the Sons of Liberty flag was also made into a device crest on uniform buttons worn by George Washington during his first battle at Cambridge in 1775. From my research i have concluded that George Washington took his great-grandfather’s “Eagle Crest” which adorned their family mansion in Tring, Hertfordshire, England, and placed the newly modified Sons of Liberty Stripe Flag and placed both symbols on his uniform buttons. The new thirteen stripe flag specifically shaped as a shield representing and reflecting the Sons of Liberty’s mission statement. From the excavation site location and supporting documentation of when he was there with his troops, we can reasonably speculate that George Washington had already made a set of gilt buttons fashioned with his families Eagle with the Sons of Liberty Stripes on a shield of resistance sometime in 1775. Last thoughts: Since the Sons of Liberty and the Second Continental Congress was made-up mostly of the era’s Freemasons who were educated in Scottish Royal Culture from their Masonic lodges; the number 13 as well as the red and white stripes could have a Scottish Royal Culture Significance and meanings draped in Allusion. 


1775-84 General George Washington’s Uniform Button
Surface Color:
An Antique Yellow W/ Pale Green Highlights.
Metal: Flat, 1-Piece Raised Design, Gilt over Yellow Metal?
Size: 14-15mm. Cuff Variant.
Rarity: R-7 (1 possibly 2 known to exist).
Variety Type:
 Washington Family Crest Eagle & Sons of Liberty 13 Stripe Shield.
Present Condition: An Excavated Specimen, A Good Planchet Condition Remains, A Strong Raised Pattern Remains.

This was dug in Taneytown MD. in the 1990’s.
The RJ. Silverstein Collection.



The Native American Rattlesnake & Stripes of the Sons of Liberty

     Prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution the Sons of Liberty Organizations was using the nine red and white alternating vertical stripe flag as a Coat of Arms. The flag carried many symbolic meanings rolled up into one recognizable flag by all colonists. Along with the transformation of the Sons of Liberty Nine Stripe flag into a thirteen stipe flag came an inflow of patriot members from all the colonies Sons of Liberty organizations. This would have naturally been the undercurrent movement in the Continental Army enlistments and state militia forces. General George Washington would have relied on his Freemason Masonic brothers and Sons of Liberty organization members for the formation of his army in the earliest days of enlistments. 

The American Revolutionary War against Great Britain began in April 1775, with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and also the Patriot siege of the British in Boston Massachusetts. In the aftermath the second Continental Congress created the Continental Army the following month. John Hancock was considered to lead the Continental Army, but Samuel and John Adams nominated George Washington instead because he was considered an incisive leader who kept his ambitions in check. 


General Washington’s original sleeping and office tent with his Headquarter’s Standard
Preserved by generations of the Custis and Lee families. Presently at the Valley Forge Museum of American History.

*** ** *** ** ***

In 1776, the Continental Congress conferred upon General George Washington the title of “Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army.” This was done as to uniquely identify him in rank the Continental Army’s military hierarchy. Along with his rank of General came the responsibilities for planning and enacting successful tactics needed for the war effort. From the onset of the American Revolution there was no official Continental insignia or flag authorized by Congress for General Washington as Commander and Chief or the Continental Army. Understanding the nuances of military stature George Washington adopted a personal headquarter flag which he used as his personal war time standard. This enabled him to distinguish his presence on the battlefield during engagements to his troops as well as the British soldiers. He personal a blue silk flag which measured 2ft x 3ft wide. The blue field could have originated from General George Washington wearing a Blue Sash. Was this a Scottish Tribute to Prince Edward Stuart who also wore a Blue Sash in the Jacobite uprising of 1745 against the British? This was still at this time formally known as a “Scot’s War” on both sides of the Atlantic by the newspapers and media of the day. The blue field had 13 six-pointed stars arranged 3:2:3:2:3. Another Scottish tribute? The Bonnie was born under the six pointed star and was still recognized as leader of the Jacobite Armies. We know that Congress created the Illusionary storyline later in 1777, that Washington’s Headquarter flag was in reference to being a new constellation. Here again a coinciding Scottish Royal Culture parallel to Prince Edward Stuart. One could not look for any deeper meaning and simply say that symbols are placed on flags to tribute or are imply a Coat of Arms or a Heraldic symbol. But again who’s Heraldic symbol? I personally go with the Bonnie Scot Jacobite Tribute meaning. Anyway, Vexillologists believe this is the oldest thirteen star American flag in existence.


George Washington’s Revolutionary War Headquarters Flag with Thirteen Six Pointed Stars

*** ** *** ** ***



The Brandywine Flag was a banner carried by Captain Robert Wilson’s Militia Company of the 7th Pennsylvania Regt.  

    When the war officially broke out in 1775, the number of stripes was strategically changed unofficially to thirteen as a propaganda move to unite the colonies forces. It wouldn’t be until June 14th 1777, officially that the Second Continental Congress would take the time and officially pass, “The Flag Resolution of 1777.” This called for Americas new flag to have thirteen alternating red and white stripes, and the union would be the thirteen stars in the canton on a blue field. This Congressional strategic move would formalize the fracturing cohesiveness of the soldiers due to battle losses and remind them of the Sons of Liberty mission for the Cause. I have no doubt that the uneducated men who were joining and fighting in the militia forces from the states were looking at the red and white stripes as a symbol and undercurrent message of a semi-successful propaganda campaign of the Sons of Liberty. They understood what the red and whites stripes in their flag stood for since the Stamp Act of 1765, and also appreciated the Patriots agenda through their splinter watchdog shadow government committees of Safety, Inspection, and Correspondence. Several state militia red and white stripe flags were used in the American Revolution.

     The Brandywine flag was a banner carried by Captain Robert Wilson’s company of the 7th Pennsylvania Regiment in the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777. This was a militia company flag, not a flag of George Washington’s Continental Army. The Brandywine Flag was one of the first flags to feature the Stars and (Sons of Liberty) Stripes. Unfortunately, after 1789, the dynamic of the stripes meaning slipped away when America set up a state ratified Constitutional Federal government. The public need for the Sons of Liberty shadow government was a thing of the past, and resulted in a change of meaning for the flags stripes. Now the propaganda message is subdued and White signifies purity and innocence, and the Red implies hardness and valour. A far cry from what our early patriots saw that carried a heartfelt meaning of independence and liberty.


 Colonel John Proctor’s 1st Battalion of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania

     On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby Concord in order to seize an arms cache. Paul Revere the principle rider for the Boston’s Committee of Safety had devised a system of lanterns to warn the minutemen of any an upcoming British incursion.  On April 18th 1775, Paul Revere and William Dawes along with some other riders rode on route to Concord and Congress to warn the villages by sounding an alarm for the minutemen to get prepared. The next day on April 19th the Minutemen under the leadership of Robinson, Barrett Buttrick, and some others came to militia formation and opened fire on the British soldiers on Lexington town green. This engagement officially started the American Revolution, and in this particular engagement the Minutemen forced the British in a hasty retreat from intense gun fire.

   News of the engagement spread like wildfire through the 13 colonies. In just a few short weeks of the Battle of Lexington and Concord one of the first military units was formed just west of the Allegheny Mountains in Pennsylvania. In the hills of Pennsylvania which surrounds Pittsburgh was the wilderness home of two rival factions of settlers from Pennsylvania and Virginia. Both settlements were at odds with one another, but they were united in their opposition of what they deemed tyrannical behavior by Great Britains Parliament. By the spring of 1775, both the Pennsylvanians and Virginians were constantly coaxed fueled by the Sons of Liberty’s propaganda and rebellious activities toward the Crown. Foretelling there would be an eminent confrontation with the British soldiers both the Pennsylvanian and Virginian settlers took preemptive steps in laying the groundwork for an organized armed response. They started planning and organizing a whole year before in the summer of 1774. Tactically they divided-up their county’s fighting force and created two battalions to safeguard the inhabitance of the frontier settlements.

     John Proctor would become the county’s first sheriff, and was given the charge of the 1st battalion. In the fall of 1775, the 1st battalion’s flag was made with the Sons of Liberty Rattlesnake surmounting the slogan “Don’t Tread on me.” In the upper left quarter is the “Union flag” with the white Cross of St. Andrew for Scotland and the Red Cross of St. George for England. The red field of the flag is actually comes from a British flag known as, “A Red Ensign.” This 1st battalion’s flag is actually two flags in one. This reason for the multiple symbol incorporation needs a little unpacking to understand. Even though the American Patriots held a disdain and used derision for the Parliament of Great Britain they were still were Loyalist to the Crown. When the war broke out in the spring of 1775, the patriots of the Pennsylvania 1st and 2nd battalion still openly declared an “Unshaken loyalty and fidelity to his Majesty King George III.” Meaning, even though they were at odds with the governance and laws of the land they still acknowledge George III to be their lawful and rightful King. Hence, this is why the 1st battalion’s flag is two flags in one.

     The native American Rattlesnake was chosen as a symbol for more than one reason. First, and foremost the native Rattlesnake or snake has been a symbol of the colonies since 1754, and has been continuously used as propaganda mechanism by the Sons of Liberty’s in the 1760’s & 1770’s to suite their philosophy. With the war time movement the Rattlesnakes took on a new dynamic and will physiologically symbolized the Patriot’s attitude toward the British. The metaphor used to describe the Patriot’s war time sentiments was taken directly from the native American Rattlesnake’s characteristics. It was analogized as, “even though the Rattlesnake’s bite could be fatal, it always prefers to avoid a fight. It never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged does it ever surrender to the enemy. Also, the Rattlesnake only strikes after giving its enemy fair warning.” These characteristics were a reflection of the soldiers serving in John Proctor’s 1st battalion and why the American native Rattlesnake was chosen to act as a warning ornament in the center of their flag.


Christopher Gadsden the Principal leader of the Sons of Liberty South Carolina Patriot Movement
Gives the Continental Navy the Gadsden Rattlesnake Flag

     Benjamin Franklin described the Gadsden Flag with the native American Rattlesnake best in his article appearing in the Pennsylvania Journal in 1775. “I observed on one of the drums belonging to the Marines just raising there was painted a Rattlesnake with the modest motto under it “Don’t Tread on Me.” As i know it is the custom to have some device on the Arms of every country, I suppose this could have been intended to be the Arms of America.” In Benjamin Franklins simple but elegant description he precisely captures the sentiment of the Patriot movement embarking for war. We also have a reflection into the after effect of the Sons of Liberty decade old propaganda play out as the undercurrent in the hearts and minds of the newly forming Continental soldiers. He goes on to say, “The Rattlesnake is found in no other quarter of the world but America. She never begins an attack nor once engaged ever surrenders. She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. She never wounds till she has generously given notice even to her enemy and cautioned him about the danger of treading on her. I confessed i was wholly at loss what to make of the rattles until i went back and counted them and found them just thirteen. Exactly the number of colonies united in America. I recollected this was the only part of the snake which increased in numbers. Tis is curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent each of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together; so as to never be separated unless by breaking them into pieces. One of those rattles singly is incapable of ever producing sound, but the ringing of 13 together is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living.”

     The drums depicting the venomous coiled rattlesnake which was witnessed by Benjamin Franklin was carried by some of the first enlisted Marines of the Continental Navy. They had just enlisted in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and were rumored to be all members of the Sons of Liberty organization. On the onset of the Revolution the Continental Navy only consisted of 4 commissioned ships. These Marines who signed up in Philadelphia was said to have the heart of the Rattlesnake and won some of the most important key Naval battles in the American Revolution.

     Their first mission was too obtain by any means possible the guns and ammo from a British Naval ship. After successfully completing, the Gadsden flag was hoisted-up and flown on the mast of the ship named Alfred. Christopher Gadsden who was the designer of the Gadsden flag was a true patriot and a former leader of the Sons of Liberty! He was appointed colonel and placed on a four man committee in which he was instrumental in appointing Esek Hopkins as Commander and Chief of the Continental Navy. He gave the flag too Hopkins to be used on his ship to be used as a personal standard. John Paul Jones raised the flag for the first time on the Alfred for the first time which was Captained by Hopkins. Christopher Gadsden also gave the flag to the Congress at Charleston and had it recorded in the congressional journals of South Carolina. The Gadsden Flag played an integral  part of creating our nation by using the Sons of Liberty propaganda symbolism in an undercurrent message.

American Flag Quiz


The Sons of Liberty Red & White Stripe Flag * Liberty Cap buttons * Rattlesnake Buttons / Flags *  *& George Washington Inaugural buttons are different mechanisms of Propaganda, but all carrying the same message of Liberty and Independence from Parliament and the Crown. The one constant is they were all developed through the Patriots who were members of the Sons of Liberty. 
– RJ. Silverstein


   The Stargate Arch of Sovereignty                     * Sirius, The Dog Star *                                      The Honey Bee
13 States W/ 5 Pointed Stars Represents        The Brightest Star in the Sky                        This is a Biblical Reference             

America taking its “Rightful Place”            Shinning down on the New Republic.                  for the Devine Right of Kings
in the 
Celestial Heavens as other        Sirius in the center, 7 for God & his workings,        through the House of Stuart via
established worldly nations have.     3 for Biblical Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob.  the Merovingian King bloodlines
*                      *                                                                        *                                                                      *                      

* God’s Love shinning down on America through the Scottish Royal Bloodline *

Scottish Royal Culture & Devine Numbers
* 3, 5, 7, 8, & 13 *

The Jacobite Uprising of 1745                                                                                   The Honey Bee’s Body 
Prince Edward Stuart used the                                                                            This is both a Devine link to God
Liberty Cap & Pole in a printed                                                                      and a reference to the 7 Earls of Scotland
propaganda campaign aimed at                                                           and the Wings are the King and Queen of Scotland.
Scottish Clan leaders & European nobles
for the Restoration of the House of Stuart.

*John Morin Scot was the 1st person in America to stake a Liberty Cap & Pole in the City of New York as a Rebellious propaganda symbol for the Sons of Liberty messaging. John M. Scot’s lineage has direct ties into the House of Stuart bloodlines.  


     We could we reasonably say with some assurance that all Liberty Cap & Pole buttons consistently carried a consistent propaganda message of Liberty and Independence regardless of which countries used it in their Rebellion. Even though other contemporary countries such as, Argentina used this symbol for their propaganda messaging, we can still credit its origins to the ancient Egyptians and Romans. For 18th century America and France i would have to give credit to the House of Stuart Royal Family Civil War with the establishment of the Hanover Monarchy of George I of Great Britain around 1698 to 1700, just after Ernest Augustus the elector of Hanover died. The Phrygian Cap and Pole was first re-introduced by George I in his propaganda war against the King James II & VII of Scotland & England in his attempt to regain the throne of England after his dethronement in the Glorious Revolution in 1688. This was a propaganda campaign which was targeted directly toward the Sir Knights of the Order of the Garter, and the English Nobles of Court. He cleverly used the ancient Phrygian Cap & Pole symbol as a persuasive measure to wrestle control away from Scottish and English supporters who believed in the Devine Right of Kings; and supported the natural restitution of James II & VII after the death of William III of Orange & Mary II.

     The Liberty Cap and Pole was then re-used by Prince Edward Stuart and turned back against George II the Hanoverian King of England in 1745/46. The Bonnie Prince used the Phrygian Cap and Pole in an active propaganda campaign to unite the Scottish Clan families out of power in-order to reinstitute Prince Edward Stuart back to the throne of England. After the Bonnie and Clan Army lost at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, fleeing members of the Scottish Royal Court loyal to the House of Stuart fled to France and Italy. Having found sanctuary in France, Jacobite sympathizers continued an undercurrent movement against the King of England which spread throughout parts of Europe and within England’s High Society Social Clubs. The Scot’s War never died, but hibernated in Scotland, England, and France and slowly blossomed into a geographical disenfranchised underground movement utilizing members positions of power in society and media campaigns against the King of England.

The French inscription was a twist until you take into account that Scottish Heritage Gentry in America did come by way of France.


1760’s to 1770’s Scottish Royal Liberty Button
A Charcoal Green with Silver Highlights.

Metal: Flat, 1-Piece, Impressed Design of Bee then Hand-Engraved Silver-Wash Copper.
The Size: 32mm. Coat Size.
Rarity: R-7 (1 known) Strict Observance Scottish Revolutionaries.
Variety Type: Jacobite Liberty Button / Eye of Providence / Honey Bee /13 Stars to Represent Colonies.
Present Condition: An Excavated Specimen, A Strong Planchet Condition Remains, A Strong Impression Remains.
Robert’s Notes: This is a Scottish-Rite Lodge fraternity button most likely used by a Jacobite who was a member of the Revolutionary Sons of Liberty organization. The button was most likely worn only in a Masonic lodge to show support for the restoration of the House of Stuart. This particular button was most likely made for a specific lodge member who is part of the Royal Bloodline families to the House of Stuart (Prince Edward Stuart). The Bumble Bee within the Liberty Cap represents the “Devine Right of Kings” of the Stuart family by way of the Merovingian King lineage to Jesus. Above the Liberty Cap is a “Stargate Arch” with thirteen (America) 5 point Stars signifying its place with other established nations in the Celestial Heavens. Sirius the brightest star in the night time sky shines down on the Jacobites New Republic. The Liberty Cap & Pole was used in a printed propaganda campaign or restoration of the House of Stuart by the Young Pretender in 1745/46. It was aimed at Scottish Clansmen who’s lineage was barred from political & economic power by the Hanoverians since the Glorious Revolution in 1688. This movement continued on with Scottish Gentry in America and known on both sides of the Atlantic as a generational Scots War. This button symoolizes how Scottish families discreetly played chess through freemasonry against George III, and used Jacobite sympathizers through vehicles of the media and social clubs to move their agenda in the restoration of the House of Stuart. Prince Edward Stuart to regain the Crown in America?

This Scottish Liberty Button was found on a Revolutionary War homesite on the River Terrance in the City.

General Murcer’s mother in-law’s property was sold to Washington’s Nephew, then later owned by Robert Scot’s son Robert Scot JR Private merchanter / Ship Captain. 



1760’s to 1770’s French Design Sons of Liberty Button “Liberte All”
A Charcoal Gray with an Ochre of Red Highlights.

Metal: Flat, 1-Piece, Pewter Mold, Raised Design.
The Size: 20mm. Vest Size.
Rarity: R-7 (1 or 2 known) Most Likely Virginia Freemason Revolutionaries.
Variety Type: American Sons of Liberty Liberty Cap Button / French Design / American Made / Southern State Variant.
Present Condition: An Excavated Specimen, A Good Planchet Condition, A Good Raised Design Remains.
Robert’s Notes: I believe this vest size button belonged to a member of some kind of Sons of Liberty Organization in Virginia. Robert Milburn pointed out to me that Norfolk Virginia SOL’s were very active revolutionaries and i would have to agree. Unfortunately, we can not give an exact provenance, but we can tightly date the button’s construction within ten years. We do have several clues to help give us an educated guess based on it being a molded pewter button which is consistent with American made construction. We also know that American Sons of Liberty Revolutionaries were in Rebellion during the late 1760’s through the mid 1770’s. The French inscription was a twist until you take into account that some Scottish Heritage Gentry in America did come by way of France. Could it have been silvered at one time? 

Robert J. Silverstein’s Isabela Collection.
Dug by Packy S. along the Appomattox River Sept 18, 2018.


***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***


 The picture above tells a story of how Jacobite sympathizers in England, and Free French Forces join America’s Rebels against the Crown of England in an attempt for a social contract change.
RJ. Silverstein Collection 



 1478 drawing of an Alchemical Tract, by Theodoros Pelecanos.
Alchemy was the ancient branch of “Natural Philosophy.” A Philosophical and Protoscientific
tradition practiced throughout Europe originating in Greco-Roman Egypt in the first few centuries AD. 


The Rattlesnake Buttons of the Revolutionaries 

     Rattlesnake Buttons were made in both England and France. To date (2019) there have been three Rattlesnake buttons dug in England all approximately one hour travel outside of England. To appropriately grasp and take-in the era, Rattlesnake button collectors must understand the American Revolution was known as a “Scot’s War” on both sides of the Atlantic. America was nothing more than an Address for Great Britain. In Scotland’s Universities and England’s social clubs during the 1760’s there was an underground movement that worked against the King of England. They provided a new movement dubbed the age of Enlightenment. They put forth “New Ideals” which tried to change and fade back centuries of Devine Right of Kings rule and Religious hierarchies of power. In Scotland, university professors would wield their influence on graduates and aristocrats who were sympathetic to their new views of change. In England it was slightly more underground using social clubs who’s members were in political positions of power for the King and country by the day, and then secretly meeting at night airing their disgruntlement with the throne and planning how to topple the established societal contracts by which people live by. This is how we tie all this in for the Scottish Jacobite undercurrent of the American revolution. If we follow the dethronement of King James II in 1698, it leads to a progression of wars in Scotland and England which continued on to a finality in the American Revolution. Jacobites must be accurately depicted as the basis for providing New Enlightened Ideals, Constitutional Freedoms, and Cultural Symbol Tributes. These three factors were allowed to culminate and work “more openly” in the British colonies who’s European colonists felt a detachment to the overseeing monarchy. Flash points of social contracts would occur producing a citizen based Patriot movement that would give way to a post war American nationalism. These Revolutionaries who met in neighborhood Masonic Clubs and taverns would become Revolutionary Patriots and their Bade was the American Rattlesnake button. The one important note about Rattlesnake buttons is that their designs catered to all European nationalities in efforts to be inclusive in the struggle for independence. 

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

A:1                 British Design                                  A:2          British Design
*                 Dug in America only                                  Found in Great Britain & America

     There appears to be a slight design difference in both Rattlesnake buttons, but from it’s construction one can reasonably imply they were both made in England. There is a third design only found in America which the snakes head is in reverse and uses the designs of the American pointed stars. Collectors can reasonably assume that certain design patterns were fabricated by more then one manufacturer. Meaning, France could have designed a more American Pointed Star to cater to the Revolutionaries in the American market while the traditional English stars were catered to Americans as well as Englishmen who were Jacobite sympathizers in the British market. The fact remains that all Rattlesnake designs were sold to Revolutionaries who worked on opposite sides of the Atlantic to usher in a New World Order of individual liberty and personal responsibility for their own prosperity. This was a transatlantic underground movement which moved away from the Devine Right of Kings and religious hierarchies of power. 

B:1  Scottish & British Integrated Religious Design      B:2  British Celestial Design
* Dug at the home of Brigadier General Augustas Washington. Found in Great Britain


B:3          British Religious Design                         B:4         British Design
                  Dug in Great Britain                                          Dug in America

B:3 Since this button was dug in the United Kingdom on the river banks of Strood (the unitary authority in the medway of Kent in the south east of England), it serves as clear evidence that British & French artisans re-purposed Scottish & English history of Charles I &II Resistance and Restoration as propaganda to fit the American Patriot Cause. Meaning they transformed or morphed the serpent devouring its own tail analogy into America’s indigenous Rattlesnake somewhere in the 1760’s-1770’s.

Next, is the transfiguration of the meaning of the Chain Link. This pattern was said to be the idea of Benjamin Franklin for early currency such as the 1776 Continental Dollar or the later 1787 Fugio Cent. This is not the truth by a far stretch. This was actually Re-purposed Propaganda again such as, the Liberty Cap and Pole, or the American Rattlesnake Buttons. This again drives from 18th century England around the 1760’s I believe with the underground Jacobite movement against the Hanoverians. As with the 1760’s Eternity Snake below it shows a united front against the Hanover King and his Order of 12 Knights for the Restoration of the Rightful Stuart King. Under the Patriot Allusion of the “13 States Uniting Together,”  Robert Scot & his Philadelphia Artisans were able to use sort-of-an evolutionary process of the “Old Serpent of Resistance” taken from Charles I to Charles II reign. Cleverly, they were able to transfigure the Ouroboros symbol into a New Chain Link Symbol. On one front it provided the American citizens the Allusion of a Unity representation. While it’s substructure of a completed linked-circle inferred to the meaning of the English use of the true Ouroboros meaning,”Time is Renewed” and the (chain link) circle is now closed for the rebirth (of the New Republic).


B:2 the struggle in america during revolutionary war period. the design implies unity with the Catholic French
Jacobite’s of Scottish decent that left Scotland and resettled in France

C:1 Scottish Royal Culture Undertone, English Design
*            Dug in the United states

C:1 I see God’s number “7.”  This would be a religiously motif Rattlesnake button hereby integrating Scottish Catholicism into America’s religious fabric of English Christianity. While English & German Anglo-Saxon Christian Patriots see thirteen 6 petal flowers in reference to the states, Scottish Jacobites see the the petal’s shape as the Regnal Jewels of Scotland. The Bonnie being “6” and the right-hand-of-God. While normal on-lookers see normal ordinary flower petal crosshatches, religious Jacobite Revolutionaries would see all roads lead to God in the “center” revealing his number “7″. While European American Patriots see 13 stripes for the unification and identification of the 13 colonies, Scottish Jacobites see a dome representing the rising or raising of the New Republic flag free of Devine Right of Rule. This is not the old representation of Prince Edward Stuart and the Order of the Garter (13) “English Bars”, but being the rise or more accurately the “Restitution” of the Scottish Royal families ascending back into power in America’s New Republic.

*The transfiguration first into Rattlesnake Buttons and then later into America’s New Federal insignia was done by using Scottish Royal Culture’s Authority and Devine Rights as the “underlying fabric” in America’s New Republic. This was an “Unpublicized Measure” taken in-order to end a century of transatlantic  “British Scotophobia” produced by the proactive propaganda measure taken by the Hanoverian Devine Right to Rule in a “Societal Indoctrination.” -R.J.S 


D:1           Scottish-English Design                               D:2         British Design

D:1 This is a Scottish-English design paying tribute the Prince Edward Stuart via the Devine Right of Kings of the Bethlehem Star that coincides with his December birth star he was born under. Since the evangelist Mathew does not tell us what the Bethlehem Star looked like; what color it was or exactly how many rays came from it; 18th century religious figures usually gave mans affiliation through five or six points even though Christian symbolism attached to the star could be 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12. Four Point Star is the Natal Star representing Jesus Birth. Five Pointed Star mathematically known as a “Pentagram” with one point aimed at the heavens symbolized the 5 wounds of Christ. The Six Point Star known as the “Creator Star” recognizes Jesus’ Jewish origins and God created the world in six days. The Eight Point Star recognizes Mary’s birthday and her Immaculate conception. The Nine Point star reminds us of the fruits of the Holy Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Generosity, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control. Last is the 12 Point star which brings to mind the 12 Apostles as well as the 12 Tribes of Israel.

D:1 & D:2 The thirteen bars represent a multi-layer allusion of tribute to America’s 13 States Union for independence; The Scottish or English King of England and his 12 Sir Knights of the Order of the Garter / Thistle; Jesus and his 12 Apostles. 

D:1     Dug in USA, French Design                         D:2      Dug in USA, French Design 

Multi-Allusions Working in Concert
RJ. Silverstein Collection

The Fleur de lis in the center means France is in the middle of the Scot’s War and acts as a shield against the British while showing support for the 13 colonies for their independence.

You should be tasting sweetness from the fruit provide by the tree look within the examples and you will see the serpent. This should make an interesting addition to your rattlesnake section if you get the whole picture.

I sent you an email about Satan and God as represented by the numbers 6 & 7  and these two numbers bookend our reality I find it interesting and you should also that the center of the Fleur de Lis lands on the 7th bar silhouetted by 6 bars on each side and of course the bottom of the Fleur De Lis has three prongs similar to the broad arrow mark. A gift back to you.

I was rechecking my past emails to you and I did provide scared knowledge you just missed the lesson. I will make it easy we will start with the tree of knowledge you will find much on the internet including the cabala and the fruit of the tree of knowledge was Jesus even the Rabbi’s and priest are ignorant of this simple concept  and his symbol I sent you the three diagrams that are all different but the same thing all at the same time the diagrams are Solomon’s seal, the six pointed star with a dot in the center and the five pointed star with a dot in the center within this is the cube I believe only I know or no one from the present is aware of except one and within this is the origins of the rattlesnake buttons and the numbers 9, 11, 13 and the origins of the 13 bars. Then the relation to the linked states with this mark -> broad arrow and we have where the three roads meet. I have given you more than you deserve as your files are full of things you should have shared with me by now.

The number 10 used in the tail rattles for the French Rattlesnake buttons has several layers of religious Allusion. For our French freedom fighter revolutionaries it most likely symbolized the completion of the cycle. The number has several religious significance throughout the Old Testament and Bible. Ten was seen as the number of Heaven and the World in terms of Universal creation. Since, 10 is the first number that requires a separate part it reflects how everything has an opposite working against each other in-order for one to work properly. Meaning, the number 10 symoolizes and represents a complete and perfect number. In religion ten could be broken down into its significant parts. The number four is the number of physical creation, and six is the number of man. In its combined conclusion 10 would mean testimony, law, responsibility, and the completeness of worldly order. In an overlay, God gave man the 10 Commandments; Therefore 10 represents mans responsibility to keep those Commandments. In Genesis 1 the earliest introduction of the number 10, God said ten times, which is a testimony of His creative power. In Exodus the Passover Lamb was selected on the 10th day, and the Lamb takes away the sins of the world. In Tarot the Ten card represents the Wheel of fortune and the Wheel symbolize the beginning of a new cycle. Plus lets not forget Virginia was the 10th state admitted to the union of June 25th 1788….lmao


***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

PR:1 New Republic, Scottish Masonry Undertone          PR:2 New Republic, Scottish Masonry Undertone
*    Commonly Found in Northern United States              Commonly Found in Southern United States

PR:2 This is a Masonic Jacobite Tribute Variation who’s design artistry most likely originates in Philadelphia under Robert Scot’s umbrella. The Rattlesnake’s head is an exact replica of the Philadelphia Grand Lodge Flag. The sister variant C:2 with the Rattlesnake wrapped around the pole depicts a more snake head depiction without Scottish Royal Culture tribute. The Phrygian Cap motif was taken from Prince Edward Stuart’s propaganda use in 1745/6 uprising. The snakes body coiled around the pole illustrates the 18th century British Royal Family Civil War between the Scottish and English family members of the House of Stuart. Both sides of the family claim the Devine Right to Rule over Scotland, England, and Ireland. The divergence begins in 1625 with James I of England & Anne of Denmark son and daughter’s destinies. It would be inappropriate to give American Patriot Rattlesnake buttons liberty cap & pole proper affiliation to the Roman Senates earlier use. The Bonnies propaganda use toward “usurper” King George II during the Jacobite Clan uprising in early 1745 did however. The 13 Cosmic Eggs form in a Celestial Arch over the Rattlesnake, Liberty Cap & Pole. This is a Scottish-Rite affiliation from ancient Scottish Royal Culture history often referred to as a Masonic “Star Gate” or “Star Arch.” This is a direct reference to the ancient belief of man’s true origins lie in the stars. 

Since, most people of their inherent nationalities automatically recognized their own history of the symbols they saw depicted in these buttons maybe it might be best for me to provide a demonstration (C:2) instead of me giving historical information of the symbols.

RJ. Silverstein’s Clockwise-Counter Clockwise Proposition: There could be some undercurrent messaging by artisan designers who were trying to capture the political feeling held by disgruntled Jacobite’s in England’s social clubs for the Hanoverian rule. The counter-clockwise would represent the Hanover Dynasty’s (King=1) rise to power through his Protestant religion who was politically maneuvered into the leadership over the (12) Sir Knights of the Order of the Garter (1+12=13 Rattles). The Clockwise design would represent Scotland’s Prince Edward Stuart who is the rightful Catholic male heir of the House of Stuart, and legitimate leader of the Order of the Garter. I only put forth the proposition because political buttons usually contain subliminal messaging with a specific intent or purpose. This does not mean that this proposition applies to all Rattlesnake designed buttons either. My purpose is to make you think and understand the social political environment in-which the buttons were created. 

PR:4 America’s New Republic, A French Design             PR:5 America’s New Republic, A Scottish Design
*                        Post Revolution                                                         Post Revolution

PR:1 & 2 This would be one of the first designs moving away from the Charles I & II Resistance and Restoration motif of the snake devouring its own tail. The idea was to capture America’s embrace of the New Age of Enlightenment, which was taking hold in America’s New Republic. With the Enlightened Era’s New Ideals which were backed by natural science and some basic individual freedom & liberty principles drafted out of the Masonic Constitution; we as a people would be able grow and break the shackles of the Old World Order and create a new society of equality. Rattlesnake designs moving forward out of post-revolution (as early as 1779) will no-longer reflect the snake devouring its own tail.


PR:6     The New Republic 1792, Scottish Design Found in a Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.                                          

PR:6 This is a Scottish Royal Culture tribute design which was made approximately 10 years after the American Revolution. This is the only rattlesnake design that depicts two small teeth in the rattlesnakes mouth, which acts as a reflection of the creation, infancy, and admission of the first two two new states outside of the original 13 (Vermont (14) and Kentucky (15)) into the union in 1792.

There are many allusions at play that work in concert, but all have a Scottish Royal Culture tie which provides a Jacobite related undertone. The six cosmic eggs on the outside would be the religious layer reflecting the Bethlehem Star of Jesus in the celestial heavens (above). This correlates directly with Prince Edward Stuart’s birth star in December of 1720, and the underlying premises of his birth and Devine Right to rule as the right hand of God. The seven inner eggs is a reflection of man (below) and reflective of the Jacobite origins steaming from King James VII. and religious incorporation of God’s number “7” in the center working through man. The Rattlesnake itself is another multi-meaning overlay. First, by the Rattlesnake not eating its own tail it signifies the movement was past the Resistance and Restoration century old struggle. The Rattlesnake not devouring the 13 rattles can also signify the break of the King of England and Order of the Garters control over society. Second, The shape of the rattlesnakes body reflects the Bonnie Prince’s 5 Petal White Rose, which was emulated by the Scot’s during the Jacobite uprising of 1745/6 and the American Revolution. By providing a false tail rattle it reflects the undercurrent support of Scotland’s Prince Edward Stuart from Italy and France.

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

With some historical information on key figures of the era by Dale Hawley and Gary Gianotti i was able to capture the 18th century thinking of the world’s elite class, and how they maneuvered and positioned themselves their interests to work in their benefit and expense of society. The Revolutionary design artisans who lived under class stratification understood their position in life and clearly made tribute to these wealthy individuals in their artistry. They designated certain signature marks or depictions to these Royals and nobles that were undisclosed to the general public.  

The Hawley Proposition

In the diagram above there is evidence that the artisan of the Rattlesnake button gave tribute to the Jewish Rothschild family by using Solomon’s Seal as a hidden tribute in this Rattlesnake’s design. Using the Rattlesnake design also displays unforgotten gratitude for help during the Revolution and Post-Revolution. By using a 5 star pentagram design it directly spoke a message to the Rothschild, Red Shield members, and illuminati.  

The Rothschild Family Coat of Arms uses all five colors as illustrated in the Jewish Star in the Graph. Each represents a brother that had helped America’s New Republic in gaining stability. The black star in the overlay represents the Dark Prince. This is the Rothschild brother who benefits by working against America’s New Republic because it is in his monetary advantage to do so. This comes in many forms from benefiting from America’s entrepreneurs or foreign interests of rival market competition. For young Americans trying to build a nation it was like a wielded unseen two edge sword by a family of seasoned veteran capitalists who had the right worldly connections and societal status. Not all Americans were blind. The Scottish Gentry of old money as well as members of Washington’s Administration clearly saw the manipulation and were caught in the middle of the principles of the Grand Architect’s Design of a new societal construct and their poor country’s need for the support of these world elites. The Red Star would be the representation of the Rothchilds family member’s actions through the Red Shield of the Illuminati. 

The artisan design pays obeisance to the Rothchilds family for their in-direct monetary support for the Patriot cause during the American Revolution. In Gary’s view, the Scottish Gentry connection would be Lord Drummond using the Rothschild family as a false front in lending America money via by the Sinclair bank in Italy. It is a portion that is hard for me to research and prove, but is worth noting. The multi-layer five star design demonstrates a level of noted appreciation to each the powerful world’s players in an auspicious religious manor to the Rothschild Jewish religion.

Each one of the stars represents an appreciative tribute to the workings of their emissaries. This would include the Rothchilds-Red Shield members, illuminati constituency, and American Patriots who worked behind the scenes to change the societal construct into a working system ( New World Order) that would be free and able function from the Devine Right of Kings and social contracts of their governmental rule. The design of the button was an inconspicuous way the American Scottish Gentry who were in the era’s economic power were able to signal they were “keeping the door open” as a welcoming mat for the future financial support that was desperately needed in America’s post-revolution era. They understood the countries desperate need for monetary tools in banking and venture capital to build a solvent nation on the world’s stage.


The Rothchilds support the Patriots in the USA at the same time as they were provide funding for England and Germany.

“Rothchild-Red Shield Illuminati financing the war against the “King of England” To the trained eye, we are saying this war is fought behind the veil of normal diplomacy between 2 kings playing chess. The world looks at the chessboard itself, instead of behind the scenes. To control America’s resources from the earth’s mining and trees. As all perceived Gods use religion for kings they embed their symbols with high morality religious means.



* Rattlesnake Design Key

British Design: Resistance & Restoration of Charles I & II. Ancient European Alchemist Philosophy coinciding with Religion on man’s inherent nature of self serving weaknesses and how its effects on one another.

Scottish Design: Scottish Royal Culture and it’s tributes to ancient Greco-Roman symbolism. This can also be viewed as having an overlapping with British design pattern by way of Prince Edward Stuart through King James I of England via Merovingian King line to God /Jesus Christ.

America’s New Republic Design: Undertone of Scottish Royal Culture ushering in the New Age of Enlightenment and move away from the Old World Order of Devine Rights of Kings.

Celestial Star Pattern: Was used to denote the proper place in the heavens next to God. Masonry correlated it with man’s origins, and wealthy families used it as a Coat of Arms for their Flags on merchant ships. Also, during and post-revolution the star was correlated with the design shape of round eggs to denote the 13 states infancy.

The Rattlesnake Devouring its Own Tail Motif: Originating in Alchemy during the early Greco-Roman Egypt period went on to be used as a propaganda tool during Charles I & II reign of power to denote Resistance & Restitution. Later used during the the Jacobites in their British Civil War and continuation into the American Revolution.

The 13 Stripes or English Bar Pattern: The stripes represents the 13 states unified for the Patriot movement. The 13 English bar pattern represents the King and the 12 Sir Knights of the Order of the Garter. Religiously, the 13 represents Jesus and his 12 Apostles.




 The 3 Roads of America’s New Republic 

***   **   ***  **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***             ***   **   ***   **   ***

Post-Revolution Society

The Revolutionary War took a toll on the Sons of Liberty organizations, and the colonists attitudes and sentiments changed by 1778 to 1779. SOL memberships for the most part completely dissipated due to the war effort. There was no longer a need for SOL secret meetings or to have shadow government Committees act as watchdogs over actions taken by Royal governors. We have become a nation geared for war and the colonists were firmly deep rooted in their side. After the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783, there was still a large population of people who were Loyalists to the Crown living in the colonies. Fearing that the organizations work was not complete and worried that the political and economic environment would revert back, Issac Sears, Marinus Willet, and John Lamb called for the revival of the Sons of Liberty in the City of New York. In March of 1784, they rallied an enormous crowd for the express reason to sway and create a public sentiment for the expulsion of any remaining Loyalist from the state of New York starting on May 1st of that year. Even though the colonists officially won the war, the remaining Crown Loyalists still had economic stakes and controlled parts of the post-revolution economy. Unfortunately, Patriot prejudice and resentment still lingered after the war and the reassembly of the Sons of Liberty would be the perfect organization to feed into it.

This time the Sons of Liberty changed the nature of the way they conducted business. Instead of using secret covert tactics backed by mob mentality they transitioned into a lawful political body. Their new objective was to create another patriot movement in-order to gain legislative seats in the New York assembly. This way they could pass a set of punitive laws against the remaining Loyalists who decided to stay in the colonies instead of fleeing to Canada or elsewhere in the British Empire. In December of 1784, in a resolution they called for the confiscation of all property owned by Loyalists. This created a political division of thought in society. Some remembering pre-revolutionary war times when soldiers used Royal authority to confiscate and seize property; others with cooler heads like Alexander Hamilton who wanted a positive political change for the well good of the new country. Understanding the economics of a post revolution society, Alexander Hamilton defended the Loyalists by citing the recently signed Treaty of Paris as being supreme over New York state laws.


The Celebratory Times of 1789

The circle is closed, time is renewed and the sacred becomes manifested in a royal link to the divine. That’s why the cross is on their home position.







    The Linked States pattern is probably the best known, and most sought after out of all George Washington inaugural buttons. This Rare Specific GWI 4-SBV.2 Variant (6 known) was most likely made for Masonic Lodges in either Philadelphia or Virginia who followed a sect Rite of Freemasonry known as Strict Observance. Even though I have provided the Allusion as to the American Patriots view: “The 3 Roads,” the Scottish Tribute Meaning provided by Robert Scot & his Philadelphia Artisans is in relation too Authority, Sovereignty, and Divinity. Herby supplanting the Ancient Kings Authority to Rule under Allusion of a Clean Birth Certificate. 

     To break down the unknown symbols of GWI SBV.2, we must realize the universal understanding of sovereignty and where it originates. Let us start with the unknown meaning (Until today 9-18-2018) of the 3 touch marks circling around the periphery. This is in reference to the 3 Prong Lily which was the Crown of the Merovingian Kings. This evolved into the French Four De Lis. All English and Scottish Stuarts were half French. This 3 Prong Symbol symbol would act as a Divine Authoritative Reference to the Rightful Kings hereditary bloodlines to Jesus Christ. This in-turn was an accepted authority by the Holy Roman Church which help empower the European Royal Kings Sovereignty by having a Divine Link to God! By Robert Scot placing the Christian Cross within the button’s periphery, we transformed the meaning of the King’s Divine Right to Rule, to now grant authority and mean, “The Devine Right to be President.”      

Next, is the transfiguration of the meaning of the Chain Link. This pattern was said to be the idea of Benjamin Franklin for early currency such as the 1776 Continental Dollar or the later 1787 Fugio Cent. This is not the truth by a far stretch. This was actually Re-purposed Propaganda again such as, the Liberty Cap and Pole, or the American Rattlesnake Buttons. This again drives from 18th century England around the 1760’s I believe with the underground Jacobite movement against the Hanoverians. As with the 1760’s Eternity Snake below it shows a united front against the Hanover King and his Order of 12 Knights for the Restoration of the Rightful Stuart King. Under the Patriot Allusion of the “13 States Uniting Together,”  Robert Scot & his Philadelphia Artisans were able to use sort-of-an evolutionary process of the “Old Serpent of Resistance” taken from Charles I to Charles II reign. Cleverly, they were able to transfigure the Ouroboros symbol into a New Chain Link Symbol. On one front it provided the American citizens the Allusion of a Unity representation. While it’s substructure of a completed linked-circle inferred to the meaning of the English use of the true Ouroboros meaning,”Time is Renewed” and the (chain link) circle is now closed for the rebirth (of the New Republic).




This Rose Cut Wine Glass belonged to George & Martha Washington during his Presidency in 1789, and then used afterward at Mount Vernon.

***   **   ***  **   ***




1789 Scottish Freemason Sons of Liberty Inaugural Button

Color: A Nicely Aged Coppery Brown Color with a Mustard Tone.
Metal: Flat, 1-Piece, Hand Fashioned With Neddles, Copper.
Size: 34mm. Coat Size
Rarity: R-6
Variety Type: 1789 Sons of Liberty Inaugural Button / The Roman God Jupiter.
Present Condition: A Non Dug Specimen, Strong Planchet Condition, An Excellent Impression Remains.
Francis Shallus, depicts his maker mark “F” & number “1”.

The Brook Moore Collection.

Robert’s Notes: Scottish Gentry 1789 Sons of 
Liberty inaugural button

The 1789 Scottish Freemason Sons of Liberty inaugural button

Hey Brook,
                  There was a special engraving technique used which allowed the engravers to embed symbols and maker marks by a needle-point engraving process. I wish it was easy to see as the “2” i highlighted, but for the unschooled or novice button collector it would take months of education in history to figure out the true symbol meanings and tie it all into the Roman God Jupiter. Jupiter is the Ancient Roman God of the sky and thunder and the King of the Gods in Roman religion and mythology. Also to take note, Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras. This lasted until christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Jupiter was commonly identified with the “Thunderbolt” which acted as his implement. The Eagle was his primary sacred animal. When these two emblems are combined they take on the representation dynamic of Jupiter in a transformational form of an eagle holding in its claws a thunderbolt, This is the forgotten twist that is frequently represented and depicted on US Military buttons dating from the Revolutionary War of 1812! – Your Welcome brother.


American Military Tribute Button to the God Jupiter

RJ. Silverstein 1812 Infantry Regt. Specimen Tribute to Jupiter
Other Albert Book Specimens: 51-G,I / 53-G,I,Gb, R17G, R29G

     I find it important to note that the number “8” which is depicted as a snake does not signify the Scottish Celt meaning of infinity. We know the Bonnie’s King’s title is VIII (8), and the House of Stuart is the “Forever” King of Scotland, England, and Ireland which makes the infinity loop; but after the death of the Bonnie in 1788, the Devine authority of the lineage of Kings is broken. Hence, the snake can no longer eat its own tail as depicted in the New Era’s1789 inaugural Liberty Cap button. So, it would be a mistake to associate the meaning of infinity.

Speculation: I would proposition the snake which forms the “8” carries a duel Christianity Biblical reference in the depiction of the worm with the Serpent head: Jesus-Worm / Genesis-Serpent?  There is also one stacked “E,” (meaning, one on top of another) which is done by the engraving art of needle piercing to make a 3-D or multi-dimensional depiction. The “E” was only found and purposefully placed in Royal portraits indicating their own Devine Sovereignty as King. Could this artisan technique of needlepoint stacking of the letter “E” signify America’s Sovereignty as a nation was built upon Prince Edward Stuart’s sovereignty? In support of using the Bonnie’s authority as a platform, we can reasonably say the body forms an “8” pointed star with 13 Rattles. Prince Edward Stuart was born under and is associated with the eight pointed star as the right arm of God. He is the legitimate King of England and leader of the 12 Knights of the Order of the Garter (13). King of Order of the Thistle too (13). Could this have been a tribute reflecting that America’s Revolution was supported Secretly by the Bonnie Prince and England’s Order of the Garter’s 12 Sir Knights who were aquatinted with Jacobites in English Social Clubs?  Conspiracy Theory of mine? Lots of combined evidence i have found to the contrary. (Make sure you read my question marks, i am not making statements.) 

Common Denominators: In the 1789 Liberty button above, i highlighted the “2” with three lightening bolts above.  This would serve as a multi-common denominator in American Revolution symbolism steaming from both the God’s Jupiter and Saturn. As Saturn is the God of agriculture (America was known for), periodic renewal, and more important “Liberation.” This could also serve as a form of tribute to the ancient celestial kings and where they come from. There is a second “2” i didn’t highlight on the back of the nine. I have to emphasis again, in this era, it was common for artisans to give multi-dimensions of tribute which often serve as an “Allusion.” As i can list many examples, the best would be the flag pictured below.


This is one of oldest Revolutionary War Flags
Guidon of the Second Regiment
of Continental Light Dragoons, AKA Tallmadge’s Dragoons

***insert connecticutt flag here***

The God Jupiter is represented by the eagle wings and thunder bolts. When all the symbols are combined they give a concept message that the God Jupiter (of our world) spiritually marches at the head of the Continental Army watching over the soldiers and leading them to victory. God’s number is “7” hence 7 lightening bolts. Prince Edward Stuart’s color is blue and through the Devine Right of Kings he is the Right hand of God who has Sovereign Authority. Prince Edward Stuart is the King and the 12 Sir knights of the Order of the Garter under the Allusion of the 13 red and white alternating stripes of the Continental Army & Sons of Liberty. Many Allusions wrapped into one.  



1789 Sons of Liberty Inaugural Button
Color: A Nicely Aged Coppery Brown Color with a Mustard Tone.
Metal: Flat, 1-Piece, Hand Fashioned Design, Copper.
Size: 34mm. Coat Size
Rarity: R-6
Variety Type: Sons of Liberty 1789 Inaugural Button / Wide Numbers.
Present Condition: A Non Dug Specimen, Strong Planchet Condition, An Excellent Impression Remains.
Obverse Button Analysis: There was only three known owners of this rare button. The copper planchet is solid and flat, and shows no signs of metal fatigue or deterioration. The button has an even copper color throughout the surface, and free of any scratches or harsh abrasions. The Liberty Cap, the Pole, and the Inaugural Year Date all have nice cuts with good detail. The little circular etchings around the the designs are very clear and easily seen. Overall this is a wonderful example that has been preserved nicely.

Stacks Auctions January 2003.~
Harold Cobb/Descendants 1960 to 2003.~
Cobb Purchased this from F. Cross (Ball) in 1960.~

RJ. Silversteins final thoughts of 1789:

In the establishment of America’s federal government all of our founding fathers, without any exception understood that without a virtuous and moral populace (which to them basically meant a religious populace) the kind of freedom they earned, and we know today could not exist in a Represenative Republic. You see prayer is the Great Humbler before almighty God. When George Washington accepted the nomination as President he knew this to be self evident. The least we could do as contemporary American citizens is not to forget the sacrifices of our forefathers, and replenish our morality with family prayer. This basic human instinct in the belief of God will provide us with the nourishment in the way we serve one another in our endeavors to better our species. One day working on our website library, Dale told me without any explanation that America was designed to have a church built in every town built in America; maybe now i understand his thoughts and understand the successful formula: Prayer.



I would leave it out Robert my thinking is different than the direction you are traveling in as Sheppard by Gary to you but I will clear the path so you can see where I stand on this trail-path. The nine founders of the Sons of Liberty or 45 were not fans of the Hanover’s or the Stuarts they were all Protestants and were not happy with their past situation 1765 Stamp Act never mind submitting after the hard won Freedom of the American Revolution to the oppressive Catholics they escaped from when leaving Europe for America with a new start in life. These nine would never submit again to any Royal nor their citizens. No more divine rights of Royals the new order for men is with God himself directly as individuals with divine rights as in aka “the new world order” missed by all today or misunderstood by the public and researchers. Seek the 7 and aspire to your inheritance. There is a morph all are missing in the evolution of humanity and civilization from hunter gatherer to farmer to academia and science where you transform from the clay of the Earth to the template of the divine you were created in the image of. It’s the story of our forefathers and founding fathers who knew this and our future we pretend not to know but suspect. You could write a great best seller on this paragraph alone with its simple perceptions.

The propaganda symbolism of the Liberty Cap & Pole’s dynamics catch on once more in contemporary Argentina.



England’s Genesis & Transatlantic History of the Oak Tree


The Liberty Tree’s symbol’s meaning (aside from a meeting location in Boston’s Hanover Square) could have had earlier subconscious psychological roots originating from the Masonic teachings of Scotland’s King history. This would derive from the House of Stuart’s dethronement of King Charles I & II’s which resulted in a public out-cry and the initiated propaganda campaign of “Resistance & Restitution” directed at the British Parliament. This type of revolt could have been a blueprint and re-kindled by the Loyal Nine or Sons of Liberty members who were known to be Freemasons who would have these shared history teachings. This is the House of Stuart’s history of King Charles I & Charles II. When they took Charles I’s head, Prince Charles II hid in an old hallowed-out Oak Tree on his property before he escaped to France. We will explore this in the next section as all parts of history are vital in making in overviewing a complete puzzle.

The 1st Political Rebellion by Colony Officials

In 1689, Sir Edmund Andros the governor of the dominion of New England acted under the direction of King James II of England to start seizing all the previously issued land grant charters that were originally issued earlier by his father King Charles I. It is historically recorded that disgruntled citizens of the colonies met-up at the “Elm Tree” (not an Oak) that grew in the Boston commons, and join ranks with a newly forming provincial militia. To add public solidarity other infuriated colonists joined-up with the newly organized provincial militia in the town of Boston to take action in the arrest dominion officials, members of the Church of England who were sympathizers, and the Royal Governor Sir Edmund Andros. This revolt was come to be known as, “The Boston Revolt of 1689.” Fortunately, because of the sheer number of  disenfranchised public with a mob mentality for social and economic justice neither faction sustained any casualties during the revolt. Afterward, the former leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony reclaimed their control of the government.

The Connecticut charter permitted the colony to make some of it’s own rules and elect certain governing officials. Colonial leader Robert Treat (1624-1710) who was born in Somerset England, and migrated with his family to Massachusetts when he was 15 years old. His family was a pseudo-benefactor of the King Charles I’s land charter, and this gave him an adolescent psychological mindset that he was one of the lucky ones afforded the opportunity by land charter for the pursuit of economic happiness. In adulthood Robert Treat settled in Milford, CT, and in a few short years he became the leader of the New Haven Colony, and then went on to be the colonial governor of Connecticut. When Sir Edmond Andros started stripping away land charters away from established families under the authority of King James II of England, it was seen as an attack upon the European colonists political and economic sovereign rights of the original charter. The gentry class colonists of means who suffered from not having recognized British Citizenship would loose their political and economic power. The Church of England which also acted as a de facto representative of the Crown unfortunately could not provide the colonists with a petition avenue of grievance for their original charter rights. 

When governor Andros officially met with the elected colonial delegates of Connecticut’s colony they refused to give up their charter and openly called for defiance against the Royal Governor. The colony’s elected officials new their legal authority would be limited against the Crown and they surreptitiously planned a diversion during the meeting which caused a confusion of orientation. Someone or somehow the candles mysteriously blew causing the meeting chamber to go dark, and with a planned slight-of-hand move by someone the Connecticut Charter disappeared from the meeting room. It was purposefully hidden inside a hollowed out White Oak Tree for two years until James II of England was overthrown in 1689, and Sir Edmund Andros lost his governorship powers over the American colonies. During the two years afterward the colony of Connecticut became part of the Dominion of New England. Robert Treat’s promoted his rebellious attitude with other Gentry sympathizers and commoners. Since he was hailed as a great Indian fighter which carried a lot of weight concerning the safety of the colonists, he was able to use his prestigious militia officer standing and openly and calling for active rebellion under his leadership.


Elm Tree or Oak Tree

After careful consideration, i just don’t think it matters which species of tree is represented on the Liberty buttons. Collectors should focus on the fact that the Liberty Tree acted as a unifying symbol which carried the message of liberty, equality, and Independence from the Parliament of Great Britain and the Crown. The Liberty Tree at later times provided a covert location, and in town squares for assembly acted as a rally-cry symbol of propaganda for the Sons of Liberty’s Cause. Since, there has been several colonial revolts incorporating the surreptitious use of “Trees” by the fleeing King of England Charles II and in America by Robert Treat of the colony of Connecticut i Consider the Liberty Tree as, “Re-purposed” propaganda by later dates 1760’s & 1770’s Sons of Liberty Revolutionaries.

Even though we cannot tightly date the Liberty button’s entrance as a propaganda to the anti-Stamp Act movement of 1765, we can reasonable say with some assurance that it could not have been manufactured prior to this for earlier colony rebellions of either Gove’s Rebellion in the Provenance of New Hampshire in 1683, Liesler’s 1689 Rebellion in New York, or the Boston Revolt of 1689. All of which called for unofficial town square meeting at or near big trees. I believe that the Liberty Tree symbol and message could have originated from Charles I & II of England message of “Resistance and Restitution” and was remembered subconsciously and re-used by Freemason members of the Loyal Nine or the Sons of Liberty in their propaganda war over the Stamp Act of 1765. The context of the use would change slightly of course to fit the cause of the revolt, but not what the Liberty Tree represents to rebels. The Liberty Tree would be the first four successful Propaganda symbols: The Liberty Tree, The Liberty Cap & Pole, The Sons of Liberty Flag, and the American Rattlesnake. All of which would be used by American Patriots in the 1760’s & 1770’s. On an expanding historical note, these symbols of propaganda would also indirectly act in concert with Benjamin Franklin’s 8 segmented snake which was taken from a wood block cut snake device engraving from Nicolas Verien in 1696.


 Drawn by Benjamin Henry Latrobe in 1796, watercolor, ink, graphite, paper. the Mount Vernon Collection. 

***   **   ***  **   ***

    A British-trained architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe painted this charming scene of the Washingtons at ease on the piazza at Mount Vernon following his visit there in 1796. George and Martha Washington are shown seated at a tea table bearing a large hot water urn. They are accompanied by granddaughter Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis, wearing a fashionable Grecian gown, and an unidentified young man with a spyglass who may be Latrobe himself. Nelly’s dog, Frisk, plays on the lawn with a child, possibly belonging to Washington’s aide, Tobias Lear. There are many romanticized depictions of the Washingtons at Mount Vernon, but only two were created during George Washington’s lifetime and only Latrobe’s appears to have been drawn from life (Latrobe’s signature on this piece is accompanied by the phrase “nat. del.,” meaning drawn from nature).


  On September 14th 1814, the U.S. soldiers stationed at Baltimore’s Fort McHenry raised an enormous  American Flag to celebrate the crucial victory over the British invading forces during the War of 1812. The sight of those “Broad Stripes and Bright Stars” flying over the fort gave renewed hope, and inspired Francis Scott Key to write a song that became America’s national anthem.

Draft End February 10, 2019. Feb 26th 2019